Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010032252025 2025:GAU-AS:2614 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./412/2025 YEAHIYA AHMED S/O ABDUS SUBUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUNDRAKANDI, PO KALIGANJ BAZAR, PS AND DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S PRODHANI, MR. N J DUTTA,MR. A M KHAN,MR Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 11.03.2025 Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is preferred by accused namely, Yeahiya Ahmed, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 13.11.2024, in connection with the Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 255/2024, under Page No.# 2/4 Sections 21(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, for granting bail. 3. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by SI(P) Bibek Bezboruah of Dispur P.S., on 13.11.2024. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that, acting on a tip off, the informant along with other staffs, conducted search in the Central Guest House located at Naharani Path, under Hatigaon P.S. and apprehended four persons, namely, Md. Hasu Miya, Amina Khatun, Akmal Hussain and Yeahiya Ahmed and recovered ten thousand suspected Yaba tablets and eleven grams of suspected heroin from their possession and thereafter, seized the same in presence of witnesses. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused submits that this is the second bail application and the first one, being Bail Application No. 3896/2024, was rejected by this court, vide order dated 21.01.2025. Mr. Dutta further submits that this second bail application is preferred on the ground that the accused was working in the Guest House and nothing has been recovered from his possession and that the said contraband substances were recovered from the possession of the other co-accused, namely, Md. Hasu Miya; Amina Khatun; and Akmal Hussain. In support of the said submission, Mr. Dutta has referred to the seizure list, which is enclosed with the petition as Annexure Nos. 3 & 4. Mr. Dutta also submits that the accused was arrested on 13.11.2024, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 118 days and that he will face the trial and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and by producing the case diary before this court, submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused to show his complicity with the alleged offence. Mr. Lahkar further submits that though the contraband substances were not recovered from his possession, yet, Page No.# 3/4 the materials collected so far show that he is the person who carried the contraband substances and handed over the same to the co-accused from one supplier. Mr. Lahkar also submits that from the materials placed on record, it cannot be said that the accused was not involved with the alleged offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail. Therefore, Mr. Lahkar has contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. Perusal of the case diary reveals that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused. It is a fact that no contraband substances were recovered from the possession of the present accused as per the seizure list, i.e. Annexure Nos. 3 & 4. But, from the materials collected so far in the case diary, it is apparent that he accompanied Akmal Hussain for selling drugs at Central Guest House on payment of Rs. 5,000/- and the said contraband substances were recovered from the possession of said Akmal Hussain. 8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid materials available in the case diary and also from the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused, this court is unable to derive its satisfaction that the present accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any offence while on bail. Thus, the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act remained unsatisfied. 9. Further, it appears that the offences are serious in nature and investigation is still going on and enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will misdirect the investigation. Therefore, this court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the accused at this stage. Page No.# 4/4 10. Accordingly, this second bail application also stands dismissed. 11. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant