Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046792025 2025:GAU-AS:5135 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/537/2025 SHOHIDUL ISLAM @ SAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- LATE ABDUL MOJID, VILL- RAKHASANI GAROPARA, PT II, PS MORNOI, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D A KAIYUM, MR. M S MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for the granting of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in connection with Mornoi P. S. Case No. 89/2024, registered under Sections 22(b)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The Case Diary has been received, and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kaiyum, that the present petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. On the particular day of the incident, when the alleged contraband was recovered from the house of his elder brother, the petitioner was in Guwahati after returning from Goalpara, and he learned about the recovery only afterwards. Further, he submitted that tapentadol tablets do not come under the purview of the NDPS Act. However, since the recovery was made from the house of the petitioner’s elder brother, he apprehends that he may be arrested in connection with this case. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail. He further submitted that he is ready and willing to cooperate fully in the further investigation of the case if he is granted bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that 1400 tapentadol tablets were recovered from the house of the accused/petitioner and from the possession of his elder brother. During the investigation, it has come to the knowledge of the IO that the accused/petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence. Moreover, his elder brother has implicated him, showing his involvement. Mr. Page No.# 3/3 Baruah further submitted that from the materials available in the case diary, it also appears that the accused/petitioner is involved in similar offences and was previously arrested in connection with such offences. He further stated that he is unable to comment on the nature of the contraband recovered, as the FSL report is yet to be obtained by the IO. Therefore, he raised objections and submitted that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail at this stage. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, as well as the materials available in the case diary and the gravity of the offence, I do not find this to be a fit case where the privilege of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the accused/petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected 7. In view of above, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 8. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant