Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010006182025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./177/2025 GAUTAM BORO S/O JANGA RAM BORO R/O GOPCHAR, GORESWAR, P.O. SILKIJHAR, P.S. GORESWAR DIST.BAKSA, BTR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Gautam Boro, who has been detained behind the bars since 09.11.2024 in connection with Special Gorchuk police station Case No. 354/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 08.11.2024, one Pranab Jyoti Bhattacharya had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Gorchuk Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that some unknown persons would be transporting suspected narcotic drugs in a vehicle for smuggling purpose at Gorchuk Lokhora Road, a police team was formed and it went to the National Highway No.27 opposite HP petrol pump and organize a special naka checking there. 4. During naka checking duty, one Hyundai Creta vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01- DA-6699 was intercepted. 5. It is also stated in the FIR that on seeing the police party, occupants of the said vehicle tried to flee away. However, they were nabbed by the police party. 6. Thereafter on the search of the vehicle, two sacks and one plastic bag containing 41.192 kgs of suspected ganja were recovered from the said vehicle. 7. The vehicle was driven by the co accused Biki Ali, and the present petitioner was another occupant of the said vehicle. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner is innocent and is in no way involved in the offence alleged in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner boarded on the vehicle on the request of the co-accused Biki Ali who was known to him. 9. It is further submitted that as the said vehicle was hired by one lady named Jaili Boro, the driver of the vehicle, Biki Ali requested the present petitioner to accompany him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the contents of the plastic bag which were there in the vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was neither having conscious possession nor there was any animus on his part to possess the seized contraband. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the victim of the circumstances and he is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Gorchuk P. S. Case No. 354/2024 and has submitted that the statement of both the accused person have already been recorded by the Investigating Officer and it appears from the statement of the co-accused namely, Biki Ali which was recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, 2023 by the Investigating Officer that the said Biki Ali is the owner of the vehicle from where seized contraband was recovered. He has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner as the embargo of section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in this case. 12. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the sides and have gone through the case day of Gorchuk police station Case No. 354/2024. Page No.# 4/5 13. It appears that the accused Biki Ali has stated before the Investigating officer that one lady named Jaily Boro had hired his vehicle to carry some good from Goreshwar to Guwahati and when the said lady got down at ISBT, the police intercepted their vehicle. It also appears that in his statement before the Investigating Officer the co-accused has made no implicating statement against the present petitioner. 14. It also appears from the case diary that the Investigating Officer has made effort to find out the whereabouts of the said Jaily Boro, however, in vain. 15. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the vehicle, in which the present petitioner was found along with Biki Ali was intercepted at naka checking point, which was arranged in front of BP Petrol Pump at ISBT. It also appears that when the said vehicle was intercepted, both the accused persons tried to escape from there, however, they were apprehended by police. 16. Further, it also appears that when they were apprehended, no one else was found in the vehicle except both of them. None of the seizure witnesses have seen any lady in the said vehicle. Though, the petitioner as well as the co-accused tried to narrate a story regarding the involvement of a lady, namely, Jaili Boro in the alleged offence. However, apart from their statement, no other material is there to corroborate the statement of the present petitioner and the co-accused to that effect. 17. The investigation till now has revealed nothing which would have led credence to the story narrated by the petitioner as well as the co-accused regarding the involvement of a lady named Jaili Boro in the offence alleged in this case. Page No.# 5/5 18. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that as the seized contraband is of commercial quantity, there is no reasonable ground, at this stage, to exonerate the petitioner merely on the basis of his as well as the statement of the co-accused recorded under 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. When the vehicle from which the seized contraband were recovered was driven by the co-accused and the present petitioner was found there and they tried to flee when they were intercepted by police, the story narrated by the accused person is not believable at this stage. Further, the investigation carried out till now has not revealed anything to support the story of the petitioner. 19. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that at this stage, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. 20. The prayer for bail is therefore, rejected at this stage. 21. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant