Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010005472025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./72/2025 NUR ALI S/O SURUJ ALI BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAMUHANDAL, PS HOJAI, DIST HOJAI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A RAHMAN, A W AMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MS SURAYA RAHMAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 31.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nur Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.12.2024 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 2/2024 under Sections Page No.# 2/4 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 08.08.2023, one Ranjit Burahohain had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Hojai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that large quantity of suspected narcotic drugs have been kept in the house of one Ataur Rahman, a search operation was conducted. During such operation, 658 grams of crystal like powder suspected to be methamphetamine was seized therefrom and the suspected accused, namely, Ataur Rahman and Khudeja Khatun were arrested. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that nothing was seized from the possession of the present petitioner and the petitioner, his wife, namely, Rumiza Khatun and Jakir Hussain were arrested in this case mainly on the basis of the statement of the co-accused from whose possession the contraband was seized. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet and he himself informed the Court, while he was detained in connection with some other case, regarding his name being there as an accused and accordingly, on the basis of production warrant issued by the Trial Court he was produced before the Trial Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile, all the co-accused have been granted bail on the ground that no grounds of arrest were furnished to them at the time of their arrest. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail mainly on the ground that apart from the statement of the co-accused, wherein he was implicated in this case, there is no other material is there in the charge-sheet which incriminates him in this case. He Page No.# 3/4 submits that in view of the observations made in the Apex Court in the case of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in “(2021) 4 SCC 1”, the statement of the co-accused is not admissible as evidence in a trial involving offence under NDPS Act, 1985. He submits that the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail in absence of admissible evidence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to this case. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the co-accused persons from whose possession the contraband was recovered have indicated the complicity of the present petitioner in the instant case. However, he fairly submits that apart from the statements of the co-accused, there is no other material in the records against the present petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of Special (NDPS) Case No. 2/2024. 10. As in the instant case, apparently apart from statements of the co-accused, there is no other material indicating the involvement of the petitioner in the offence alleged in this case and as such statements are inadmissible as evidence in view of the observation made by Apex Court in the case of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” (supra), the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not applicable to this case. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 11. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Hojai with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special (NDPS) Case No. 2/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Hojai; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so Page No.# 4/4 required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant