Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010032932025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./450/2025 RAFIKUL ISLAM S/O- AHMAD ALI, R/O- VILL- RUPOHI THANA ROAD, PS RUPOHIHAT, DIST- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, MS A HUSSAIN,S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Darak Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Rafikul Islam, who has been detained behind the bars since 17.01.2025 in connection with Rupohihat P.S. Case No. 22/2025 under Sections 61(2)/111(1)/123 of BNS read with Section 21(a)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.01.2025, one Chinmoy Page No.# 2/3 Varun Konwar, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Rupohihat Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through the reliable sources regarding the fact that one person in a scooty is coming from KKawaimari side to Rupohi side with huge quantity of narcotic substance. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and a naka checking was set-up at Tamulitup. During the naka checking, one scooty bearing Registration No. AS-02-AQ-9938 was intercepted and same was driven by the present petitioner. On search of the said scooty, 15 nos. of small plastic vials containing suspected heroine was recovered. On weighing of the quantity of recovered heroine it was found to 2.37 grams. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apparently from the FIR, it is clear that the quantity of suspected heroin seized in this case is of small quantity and the offence under Section 21(a) is a bailable offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no ingredient of any offence under Section 61(2) or 111(1) or 123 of BNS is there. He submits that said sections of law have been added in this case only with a view to detain the petitioner in a case which was otherwise a bailable case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the present petitioner and the seized contraband was recovered from his possession. He further submits that as regards the allegations of committing offence under the penal provisions of BNS as shown in the FIR, the investigation is still on. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have perused the materials available on record including the case diary of Rupohihat P.S. Case No. 22/2025. Page No.# 3/3 8. The offence under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act is a non-bailable offence as held by this Court in the case of “Bilal Hussain –Vs- State of Assam” in AB No. 3029 of 2024. 9. Moreover, for committing an offence under Section 111 and 61 of BNS, involvement of minimum two persons is necessary. However, in the instant case, apart from the present petitioner, the materials on record do not suggest involvement of any other person. Hence, apparently the penal provision of the BNS shown in this case does not appear to be applicable. 10. Moreover, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 47 days and, therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that further custodial detention of the above named petitioner is not necessary for fair completion of the investigation of Rupohihat P.S. Case No. 22/2025. 11. In view of above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Nagaon 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 or to any Court. 12. This bail application is disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant