Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010025012025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./319/2025 HABIJUL RAHMAN S/O ELAHI SK R/OBONDIHANA PT.III P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-783349 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A S CHOUDHURY, MR S HUSSAIN,MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed Page No.# 2/4 by the petitioner, namely, Habijul Rahman who has been detailed behind the bars since 15.10.2024 in connection with Jalukbari P. S. Case No. 518/2024 under Section 21(b)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.10.2024 one Sri S. K. Sinha, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Jalikbari Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through the reliable source regarding presence of drug peddlers near Haj Bhawan, Jalukbari, an operation was conducted and during the said operation, five accused persons including the present petitioner were detained and total 21.65 grams of suspected heroine (including the plastic vials) were seized from their possession. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person. He further submits that the quantity of heroine seized in this case is a small quantity as after excluding the weight of the vials, the total quantity of heroine was found to be 3.68 grams, which will appear from the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro). 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile one of the co-accused Rashida Begum and Alekjan Begum have already been released. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner by submitting that the Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 is involved in this case and therefore, the embargo of Section 37 is applicable in this case. 7. He also submits that the investigation is still at an initial stage, therefore, he opposes the grant of bail to the present petitioner. Page No.# 3/4 8. I have gone through the materials available on record as well as the considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. 9. Though, it appears that the total weight of the contraband along with the vials was found to be 21.23 grams, however, after excluding the weight of the vials it was found to be 3.68 grams which is a small quantity in respect of the offense pertaining to heroine. 10. Further, though Section 27A is mentioned by the prosecution side in this case, however, on perusal of the case diary, no materials at this stage under Section 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985 could be found, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not applicable at this stage. 11. In view of above, the above-name petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (Metro) with the following conditions: i. 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer. ii. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 12. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. Page No.# 4/4 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant