Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010012302025 2025:GAU-AS:2407 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./164/2025 JAMAL UDDIN ANSARI S/O AMIR ALI MIA @ AMIR ALI LASKAR R/O VILL- BURNIE BREASE T.E. P.O.BURNIE BREASE, P.S. ALGAPUR DIST.HAILAKANDI, ASSAM PIN-788801 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, H YEASMIN,MR A K AZAD,G UDDIN,MR H I CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 06.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/6 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jamal Uddin Ansari, who has been detained behind the bars since 27.10.2024, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 58/2024, arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 332/2024 under Section 21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 22.05.2024, one M.N. Singha, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Karimganj Police Station, inter alia, alleging that a reliable information was received regarding transportation of a huge quantity of narcotics drugs by some drug peddlers, who were identified as Sumon Ahmed, Abdul Halim@ Burhan Uddin and some others in a Tata (magic IRIS) vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-11C-3654. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and it moved towards Dewakuri Village under Kaliganj in Karimganj. 4. The police team after reaching the house of one Samsul Islam, apprehended some persons, including the accused named, Burhan Uddin. The vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-11C-3654 was also seized and which is suspected to be used in transporting the contraband. 5. During search of the house of one Samsul Islam, 298 grams of suspected heroin was recovered therefrom. On receipt of the said FIR, the Karimganj P.S. Case No. 332/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was laid against 5(five) numbers of accused persons, including the present Page No.# 3/6 petitioner. 6. The main reason for final charge sheet against the present petitioner is that during the investigation, he was found to be the owner of the vehicle, which was seized, in connection with this case and the said vehicle was suspected to be used in carrying the contraband. 7. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in this case. He submits that the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-11C- 3654 was initially purchased by the petitioner after obtaining financial assistance from Tata Motors Finance Limited. However, he submits that the petitioner failed to deposit the monthly instalment against the loan and therefore, on 17.08.2018, the vehicle was possessed by the Finance Company and thereafter, it was sold in auction on 21.09.2018. 8. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has furnished the documents which he has procured from the Tata Motors Finance Limited in this bail application as Annexure-5. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that thereafter, the vehicle in question was sold in several times, and to that effect, during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected the related documents i.e., sale agreement of the aforesaid vehicle between (1) Th. Babu Singh and one Giasuddin, (2) between Giasuddin and one Jubaire Ahmed, (3) between Giasuddin and one Jubaire Ahmed. The mention about the said sale deed and sale agreement is there in the charge sheet itself. Page No.# 4/6 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the materials on record shows that on the day of the alleged offence of the possession of the vehicle was not with the present petitioner, neither he was the owner, as it was sold to the other persons. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there are no materials on record, apart from the statement of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner is the real owner of the seized vehicle to show his complexity in the alleged offence. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and the Investigating Officer has mentioned in the charge sheet that the real owner of the seized vehicle is the present petitioner. He, however, fairly submits that though the Investigating Officer has seized the sale deed and sale agreement, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to during his submissions, he has not verified the authenticity of said documents in the office of the DTO and therefore, no benefit should be granted to the present petitioner while considering the bail application. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have perused the materials available on record. 14. It appears from the record that the contraband recovered and seized in this case was not recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. His only link with this case is that he owned the vehicle which was seized in this case. However, there are materials on record to show Page No.# 5/6 that the vehicle no longer belongs to the present petitioner and on the date of alleged offence, he had no control over the said vehicle. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, for the limited purpose of consideration of the bail of the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence, with which he has been charged in this case. Moreover, no material is there on record to show any criminal antecedent of the present petitioner, so this Court may also come to the finding that he is not likely to commit any offence, if granted bail. 16. This Court, therefore, is of the considered opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, under the facts and circumstances of this case, was not applicable to the above-named petitioner. He is, therefore, entitled to get bail. 17. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi (Karimganj), with the following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 58/2024, which is pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi (Karimganj); ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so 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 Page No.# 6/6 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 provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. 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; vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; and 18. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant