Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010032712025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./448/2025 MUKTAR HUSSAIN @ MUKTAR HUSSEN S/O ABUL KALAM AZAD VILL-LALKURA, SIMULBARI P.S. BAGUAN DIST.GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR S PRODHANI,MS. R S BHUYAN,MR T T MONI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. T. Moni, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner namely, Muktar Hussain @ Muktar Hussen, who has been detained behind the bars since 26.09.2024 in connection with Goalpara P. S. Case No. 129/2024 under Section 21(C)25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that, on 25.09.2024, one Gitartha Kalita, SI of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Goalpara Police Station, inter-alia, that on receipt of an information through reliable sources as a search operation was conducted and during search conduct at Hedayatpur, two persons namely, Muktar Hussain and Sahinur Islam were apprehended and from their possession 18 strips of SAMPELX+ tablets containing 432 numbers of capsules were found in a polythene bag. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no way involved in this case and he has been detained behind the bars since 26.09.2024. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Goalpara P. S. Case No. 129/2024 and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case diary and 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 this case. 6. I have considered the submission by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials available on record. 7. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the case diary and as the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case, the prayer for bail is rejected. Page No.# 3/3 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant