Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010004212025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./75/2025 SAJU RAHMAN LASKAR AND ANR S/O- SIRAJUDDIN LASKAR, R/O- LOKNATHPUR, P. S. - DHOLAI, DISTRICT CACHAR, ASSAM, 2: AMIRUL ILSAM S/O- ABDUL MONAF R/O- LOKNATHPUR P. S. - DHOLAI DISTRICT CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S M MOLLAH, MS. C M BEZBARUAH,MR R ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Mollah, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Page No.# 2/4 Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Saju Rahman Laskar and 2. Amirul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 26.12.2024 (for last 48 days) in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 1362/2024 under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 25.12.2024, an FIR was lodged by one Kamal Jyoti Thakuria, SI of Police of Dispur Police Station before the Officer-In-Charge of Dispur Police Station inter alia alleging that on the basis of a secret information received through reliable sources, a search operation was conducted and 110.81 grams of heroin was recovered from one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS 01 RC 9841(Truck) and two persons, namely, Raj Kumar Thakur and Sanjeet Kamat were apprehended being occupant of the said truck. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in no way connected with the offence alleged in the FIR and they have been implicated only on the basis of suspicion. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners are detained behind the bars for last 48 days and considering the period of detention, they may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has submitted that the arrested accused persons during interrogation by the Investigating Officer has implicated the petitioner No. Page No.# 3/4 1 as having involved in the offence alleged in this case. However, he fairly submits that there is no material against the petitioner No. 2, Amirul Islam in the Case Diary. He also submits that from the possession of the present petitioner’s one vehicle bearing Registration No. MZ01L8576 as well as cash amount of Rs. 84,900/- was recovered. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, including the Case Diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 1362/2024, it appears that there are no materials at the present stage of investigation against the petitioner Amirul Islam. Moreover, the only material against, Saju Rahman Laskar is the statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible as evidence. Further, considering the period of detention of already undergone by the petitioners as well as the progress made in the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that further custodial detention of the above- named petitioners may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of this case. 8. In view of the above, the above-named petitioners are hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with a suitable surety of like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup(M) with the following conditions that:- (a) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup(M) without prior written permission from him/her; (b) the petitioners shall not hamper with the investigation and tamper with the evidence of the case; (c) the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, Page No.# 4/4 threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 9. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. 10. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant