Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010024202025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./325/2025 DAROGA YADAV S/O CHALITRA YADAV ALIAS CHALU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAISA, PO BAISA, PS PARTBATTA, DIST KHAGARIA, BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. K MALAKAR, MS A MAJUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.04.2025 1. Heard Ms. K. Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Daroga Yadav, who has been detained behind the bars since 20.12.2024 in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 155/2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/5 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15th of December, 2024, one Sanjib Choudhury, ASI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- charge of Bongaigaon GRPS, inter alia, stating that on 14th of December, 2024 at about 10.30 AM, the informant received an information through reliable sources regarding smuggling cannabis concealed in the rear V.P. vide No. CR 081843 of the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express Train and accordingly, a search team was constituted which reached the platform No. 03 of of New Bongaigaon junction at about 2:20 AM. The said Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express arrived at 2:28 AM and during search, 50 packets wrapped in brown colour tape concealed in rubber sheets were recovered and the said packets contained suspected cannabis. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in this case. She submits that the petitioner was arrested after five days of the lodging of the FIR, i.e., on 20.12.2024. She also submits that the petitioner is a loader (Coolie) working in Agartala Railway Station. She also submits that at the time of arrest of the present petitioner, the ground of arrest was not intimated to him, neither in the forwarding letter addressed to the Special Magistrate, Bongaigaon the grounds of arrest were mentioned. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner was not aware about the contents of the packets which were loaded in Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express. She also submits that the contraband was not seized from the possession of the present petitioner. She, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail as there is no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 3/5 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. He also submits that the contraband which was recovered from the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express was booked by one DG Raj Highway Services, Howrah and it was loaded in the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express by the labourers of whom the present petitioner was the leader (Sardar). He also submits that as original consignment has not yet been traced, the release of the petitioner at this stage of investigation would hamper the investigation. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the materials available on record, including the case diary of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 155/2024. 7. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the consignment of suspected cannabis which was recovered in this case has been recovered from the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express and it was not recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he along with his fellow loaders (Coolies) loaded the said consignment in the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express. There is no dispute at bar regarding the fact that the petitioner is a loader/leader of loaders (Coolie) whose job is to load goods in trains. 8. In the instant case, apart from the fact that the consignment was loaded by the men engaged by the present petitioner, who is a loader (Coolie) in the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express, there is no other material to show that the petitioner was knowing as to what was there in the packets which were Page No.# 4/5 loaded in the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express. It is a matter of common sense that loaders (Coolie) are not expected to know the contents of goods which they carry in the railway stations. Unless the prosecution side shows some material to indicate that the petitioner was knowing beforehand the contents of the 50 packets which were loaded in the Sealdah Kanchanjungha Express, it is difficult at this stage to hold that the petitioner is guilty of the offence involved in this case. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of considered opinion, for the limited purpose of consideration of this bail application, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the present petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged in this case. 9. Moreover, there is no material to show any criminal antecedent of the present petitioner in the case diary. This Court, therefore, is of considered opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not applicable to this case. 10. For the reasons mentioned in the forgoing paragraphs, the petitioner, namely, Daroga Yadav 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, Bongaigaon with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer. 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant