Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010017532025 2025:GAU-AS:5281 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/256/2025 SAHIN KHAN S/O BABUL KHAN @ BABUL MIYA KHAN R/O KALIBARICHAR,P.S.SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM PIN- 788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR E HUSSAIN,MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 30.04.2025 Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Silchar P. S. Case No. 676/2024 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1370/2024, under Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The scanned copy of the case record as called for, has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mazumder, that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected to the alleged offence. From the contents of the FIR itself, it is evident that the petitioner was searched by the police solely on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused, which is not admissible in evidence as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 4 SCC 1]. In this judgment, it was held that a statement made by a co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not legally tenable and cannot form the basis for conviction. Reliance is placed specifically on paragraphs 25 and 155 of the said judgment. 5. He further submitted that, despite a house search of the present petitioner, no incriminating materials were recovered from his residence during the investigation of the case. It is also submitted that during the said search, the petitioner could not appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) as there was no interim protection, and Page No.# 3/3 thus has the apprehension of being arrested in connection with this case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials available in the case record against the accused/petitioner. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner is the main kingpin of the entire offence and that the crime was committed under his instructions. It is also submitted that several attempts were made to apprehend the accused/petitioner through house searches, but he remained absconding and evaded police arrest, and did not extend cooperation during the investigation. Consequently, he was shown as an absconder in the case record. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the scanned copy of the case record along with the case diary. It reveals that this is not a case where the petitioner was charge-sheeted solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. On the contrary, there is sufficient material available against the accused/petitioner, and it has been stated that he is the main kingpin behind the entire offence. Furthermore, it is evident that during the house search, he was absconding and did not cooperate with the investigation. 8. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the conduct of the accused/petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned Trial Court with an application for regular bail, which may be considered in accordance with law by the said Court 9. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant