Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040009162025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/72/2025 Smti Rehena Begum Wife of Shri Shaik Farid, permanent resident of Village No.1 Ahmedpur, PO Bangalmara, PS Bipuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Tailang Laji, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 03.07.2025 Heard Mr. M Kamcham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T Ete, learned Public Prosecutor. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Naharlagun PS Case No. 62/2025 under Section 21(B)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/4 The fact of the present case is that on a reliable information that a drug peddler is in possession of suspected contraband and are selling them to the addicted/persons, the police personnel, after entering the contents in the general diary, proceeded to the concerned place after informing the Senior Officer and the team apprehended one Shariful Islam from whom contrabands were recovered and on interrogation of Said Shariful Islam, it was found out that there are more peddlers who were coming to another place in Naharlagun for selling drugs. The police as such, left to the said place and intercepted two drug peddlers who however attempted to flee but the police personnel somehow apprehended them. It is the petitioner who was apprehended by the police and on search being made contrabands were recovered from him which weighed 30.3 grams and 11.4 grams of heroin including the plastic pouches from his pockets. Thereafter, the police personnel arrested the petitioner with the others and lodged the ejahar and registered the case under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amount of the contraband recovered from the petitioner was intermediate in quantity and that the time of arrest was shown differently in his arrest memo and in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioner has an ailing mother who is Page No.# 3/4 to be looked after. The learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner has been inside for 57 days in jail and since the mandatory period is 60 days he may be released on bail Mr. T Ete, learned Public Prosecutor however submits that all the procedures required to be followed under the NDPS Act were adhered to by the police personnel and there was no violation of any other provision mentioned in the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, he submits that he was caught red handed with the contrabands in his pocket. He also submits that the difference in the timing of arrest in the arrest memo and the FIR will not have any consequences in the case. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the Case Diary. It is noticed from the Case Diary that the police has recorded the statements of the witnesses alongwith the statements of the petitioner. None of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not involved with the offence or that the contrabands were not recovered from his pocket. The petitioner himself has also submitted in his 161 statements before the police that he is involved in selling contrabands. In the FIR it is writ large that the petitioner tried Page No.# 4/4 to flee when the police reached the place on the information given by the co- accused Mr. Shariful Islam. The mandatory grounds of arrest under as required Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 52 of the NDPS Act is also been served upon the petitioner. Therefore, in the facts of the aforesaid case, this Court is constrained not to release the petitioner on bail and bail petition is as such rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant