Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010031822025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./451/2025 UTTAM SARKAR AND ANR. S/O MANIRAM SARKAR R/O PURBA LAXMIBILL, BISHALGARH DIST. SEPAHIJALA, TRIPURA, PIN-799102. 2: MD. BAHAR MIAH S/O TURU MIAH R/O WEST LAXMIBILL BISHALGARH DIST. SEPAHIJALA TRIPURA. PIN-79910 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SC, DRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS A BORAH,MS. J GHOSH,MS A DAS,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. P. S. Chakraborty, the learned standing counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners namely, (1) Uttam Sarkar, and (2) Md. Bahar Miah who have been detained behind the bars since 06.04.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 120/2024 corresponding to the Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-25 under Sections 21(c)/29 seized under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that, on 13.09.2024, a final complaint was filed under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against three (03) numbers of accused persons including the present petitioners. 4. In the complaint, it has been alleged that acting on a specific intelligence input, the Officers of DRI Sub-Regional Unit, Silchar assisted by BSF personnel intercepted one Alto K10 VXI car bearing registration No. ML-05Q- 6151 and one TATA truck bearing registration No. AS-01-FC-0271 at 06.30 hours on 06.04.2024 at Kalain area of Cachar District. 5. In the Alto car, which was intercepted, the present petitioners were found to be the occupant and the car was being driven by the petitioner No. 1 Uttam Sarkar, and, the petitioner No. 2 Md. Bahar Miah was the other occupant of the said car, whereas in the truck, which was intercepted one Naorem Arun Singh was found to be driving the said vehicle. Page No.# 3/5 6. On search made by DRI official, one lakh numbers of suspected Yabba tablets containing Methamphetamine were recovered from the said vehicle. The total quantity of the seized contraband was 10 Kg. 7. Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and are not involved in the offence alleged in this case. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nothing was recovered from the vehicle in which both the petitioners were found. Their vehicle was only following the truck from where the recovery was made. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that there is no material on record to link the petitioners with the offence alleged in this case and they were arrested in connection with this case merely on the basis of suspicion. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submits that the petitioners have been detained behind the bars for the last 339 days and till now the trial has not yet begun and therefore, on the ground on prolonged incarceration, he has prayed for allowing the petitioners to go on bail. 11. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the DRI has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners on record. She also submits that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable. 12. I have consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of NDPS Case No. 120/2024, which was requisitioned from the Trial Court in connection with the Page No.# 4/5 instant bail application. 13. Though, in this case, the seized contraband was not recovered from the Alto K10 VXI car, in which the present petitioners were found. 14. On perusal of the final complaint filed by the DRI on 13.09.2024, it appears that apart from the statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, other materials were also collected by the Investigating Officer to prove the complicity of the above named petitioners in the offence alleged in this case. 15. As the quantity of the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in the case of the present petitioners. 16. During the investigation which followed after recording of the statement of the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, incrimination materials were collected against the present petitioners and therefore, this may not be a case, where the Court may come to a reasonable finding that the petitioners are not guilty of the offence charged in this case. 17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are unable to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in this case, at this stage. 18. As regards as the plea of prolonged incarceration is concerned, considering the quantity of contraband seized in this case, the incarceration for less than one year, i.e., 339 days of petitioners, in the considered of this Court is not long enough to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in this case. Page No.# 5/5 19. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant