Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010141532026 2026:GAU-AS:10347 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1910/2026 PRASANNA NATH S/O LT. NANDESWAR NATH, R/O VILL NC BAHIPUKHURI P.S.-MAJBAT P.O.- PATHAKPUR, DIST.- UDALGURI -BTR (ASSAM) PIN-784507 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G KAKOTI, S MEDHI,MR. P THAKURIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS is preferred by accused, namely, Prasanna Nath, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Page No.# 2/5 Special (NDPS) Case No. 43/2025, arising out of Rangapara GRPS Case No. 12/2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Sohan Lal Pradhan, SIPF/RPF/RPAN on 02.06.2025. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that on 02.06.2025, he, along with one Narayan Basumatary were carrying three bags of ganja in Rangiya-Murkongselek Express. 4. Mr. Thakuria, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused has been languishing in jail hazot since 02.06.2025, and the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, and that three witnesses have been examined so far. He also submits that the seizure witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and that the seizure list has not disclosed the name of the accused, and therefore, he has contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition. Referring to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were examined before the learned trial Court, Mr. Sarma submits that 21 kg of ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused person and the same is of commercial quantity and as such, there is a requirement of satisfying the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he will not commit any such offence while on bail, and since the accused has failed to satisfy the aforementioned conditions, the accused cannot be enlarged on bail. 6. It is to be noted here that when a question was put to Mr. Thakuria, learned counsel for the accused, as to how he would satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he has submitted that it is not applicable since the Page No.# 3/5 articles were not recovered from the accused person as seizure list is silent on this point and as the seizure witness has not implicated him. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial Court. 8. It appears that the accused has been charged under Sections 20(b)(ii) (C)/29 of the NDPS Act and three witnesses have been examined so far, and perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, prima facie indicates that ganja, amounting to 21 kg, was recovered from the possession of the accused. 9. Though the seizure list does not reflect the name of the accused, yet prima facie it appears from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and also from the allegation made in the FIR dated 02.06.2025, that the articles were recovered from the possession of the accused, and as such, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of the Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Since the accused has failed to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. In holding so, this Court derived authority from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.2351 of 2023] and also in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, in Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024]. 10. It is to be noted here that in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Page No.# 4/5 “In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.” 11. It is also to be note here that in the case of Kashif (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “39. The upshot of the above discussion may be summarized as under: (i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. (ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act. ………………………………………………...” 12. It is a fact that one of the co-accused has been enlarged on bail. But, while granting bail, the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and satisfying the said requirement has not been discussed and therefore, the principle of parity cannot be applied in the case of the present accused. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. Page No.# 5/5 14. However, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and to complete the same as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant