Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010032392025 2025:GAU-AS:2712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/383/2025 RAJA ALI S/O-LATE SAFAR ALI, R/O-BHUTNATH BAGAN, NEAR KALI MANDIR, P. S. -BHARALUMUKH, DISTRICT-KAMRUP(M) , ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM,MD. S ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 10.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lakhar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Raja Ali, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 01/2025, under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 02.01.2025, one Pradyumna Kalita, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of Bharalumukh Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of the information that some person would be selling drugs in Bhutnath Kalipur area, a search operation was conducted and during search, one Jahidul Islam was apprehended from whose possession 10(ten) numbers of plastic vials containing Heroin were recovered. The total weight of Heroin which was recovered was 12 grams. During interrogation, the apprehended person revealed that he purchased the said Heroin from the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, not involved in the offence alleged in the case. He submits that apart from the statement of the co-accused, which is not admissible in the evidence, in a case involving NDPS Case. There is no other material against the petitioner. He further submits that the police is searching for him. Therefore, he is apprehending his arrest in connection with this case. 5. He further submits that the case has been registered under Section 22(b) only and there is no accusation of offence under Section 29 in this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Page No.# 3/4 P.S. Lakhar, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the case is still at investigation stage and during investigation stage, if sufficient materials are found, relevant penal provisions may be added at any time. 7. He also submits that though the incriminating materials against the present petitioner at this stage is the statement of the co-accused, who was apprehended in this case and from whose possession the contraband was recovered. However, he further submits that the advantage of the decision of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in” (2021) 4 SCC 1.” may not be granted to the petitioner while approaching before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in the NDPS case and Bharalumukh P.S. Case No. 155/2024 under Section 21 (b) is also pending against the petitioner. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has in support of his submissions cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “The State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar” (order dated 20th July 2022, [in Criminal Appeal No. 1006/2022] (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6683/2021, wherein, the Apex Court has observed as follows:- “8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nade(supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.” Page No.# 4/4 “9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.” 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides. In this case the apprehended accused has implicated the petitioner to the extent that the contraband which was recovered in this case was supplied to him by the present petitioner. As the investigation is still on. 10. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “The State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar” (supra), the benefit of the ruling of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) may not be availed by the petitioner in an application for anticipatory bail. Moreover, as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioner has been involved in other cases, involving offence under the NDPS Act, 1985. 11. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case, where the favourable order under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 may be issued in favour of the petitioner. 12. This anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected. 13. Hence, the case is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant