Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040010042026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/61/2026 Smti Maina Doley Pegu Wife of Biku Pegu, resident of Village Dahgharia, Bodoti, PO and PS Bihpuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Jambey Tsering Kee, Dejum Tally,Techi Topu Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 31-07-2026 Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of AP. Page No.# 2/8 2. Invoking the provisions of Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner herein is seeking bail for the alleged accused, Sri Biku Pegu, in connection with Chimpu PS Case No. 24/2024 registered under section 21(b)/27(A)/29 of NDPS Act. The said case after completion of investigation resulted in a chargesheet and is presently pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Yupia in the form of NDPS Case No. 33/2026 and is stated to be at the stage of appearance. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 19.03.2024 lodged by a police official of Chimpu Police Station on the allegation that on the same day itself, i.e., on 19.03.2024, he participated in a naka checking whereupon 3 (three) persons on a bike were trying to flee away by turning the bike back, whereupon, they were chased and one person namely, Anan Pegu, was apprehended while the other 2 (two) managed to flee. It is further alleged that upon conducting search, the said person was found to be carrying four soap boxes, pouches and 45 plastic vials containing 147.9 grams of suspected heroin were recovered and seized along with other materials. It is alleged that upon interrogation of that person it was revealed that one Biku Pegu (the petitioner) and Dhon @ Don Pegu are in the business of procuring narcotics from Dimapur and then selling it off to the youth of Itanagar capital region. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 19.04.2026 on the strength of NBWA and presently is in judicial custody since then, which constitutes more than 100 days. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that though the present petitioner had preferred a bail application before the learned Trial court, but the same came to be rejected. However, the other co-accused namely, Anan Pegu, is on bail and it is fairly Page No.# 3/8 submitted by the learned counsel that he was released on default bail. 5. The learned counsel submits that the factual matrix in the instant case that has emerged from the allegations and the investigation - would not make out an offence under section 27A of the NDPS Act and therefore, the rigours of section 37 would not be applicable. It is submitted that the alleged activities attributed to the petitioner would not constitute financing of drug trafficking stipulated under section 27A NDPS Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Mukul Chauhan Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2025 Supreme(HP) 297; (ii) Vipul Vs. State Supreme (Online) (HP) 4467. of HP, 2025 6. It is submitted that in the said decisions, the Himachal High Court referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty V. Union of India, 2021 Crl.LJ 248 has held that giving money for an isolated transaction would not per se constitute financing drug trafficking punishable under section 27A of the NDPS Act. 7. The scanned TCR has been received. 8. The learned Additional PP submits that the 3rd accused Don Pegu is still absconding, and even the present petitioner was not available and NBWA was issued by the learned Trial Court on 30.06.2024 and was arrested upon its execution on 19.04.2026. It is submitted that the trial was held up due to the absconding of the accused persons and now that the present petitioner has been apprehended, granting of bail risk delaying the trial, in the event of further absconding. 9. The learned Additional PP submits that financing of even small Page No.# 4/8 transactions of drug trafficking would attract the provisions of section 27A of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that apart from the statements of the co- accused there are other materials against the petitioner in support of the allegations. The learned Additional PP opposes the grant of bail at this stage. 10. I have perused the relevant records and considered the submissions. 11. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply not only to offences involving commercial quantity, but also to offences under Section 19/24/27A of the Act. In this context, Section 27A may be looked at and the relevant statutory provision reproduced hereinbelow: “27A. Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders.— Whoever indulges in financing, directly or indirectly, any of the activities specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of clause (viiib) of section 2 or harbours any person engaged in any of the aforementioned activities, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.” 12. In this context, sub-clauses (i) to (v) of Clause (viiib) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act may also be reproduced herein. “(viiib) “illicit traffic”, in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means— Page No.# 5/8 (i) cultivating any coca plant or gathering any portion of coca plant; (ii) cultivating the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; (iii) engaging in the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, warehousing, concealment, use or consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment, of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; (iv) dealing in any activities in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances other than those referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iii); or (v) handling or letting out any premises for the carrying on of any of the activities referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (iv), other than those permitted under this Act, or any rule or order made, or any condition of any licence, term or authorisation issued, thereunder, and includes— (1) financing, directly or indirectly, any of the aforementioned activities; (2) abetting or conspiring in the furtherance of or in support of doing any of the aforementioned activities; and (3) harbouring persons engaged in any of the afore- mentioned activities.” (emphasis added). 13. Thus, the definition of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances takes within its fold, sale, purchase, transportation, interstate import, etc. of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Page No.# 6/8 14. In the case of Mukul Chauhan (supra), the Himachal Pradesh High Court referring to the decision of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Rhea Chakraborty V. Union of India, 2021 Crl.LJ 248, held that sale and purchase of drugs are made separately punishable under Sections 20/21/22/23 and therefore, term financing cannot be interpreted to mean providing money for a particular transaction, but can only mean making that particular activity operational or sustainable. 15. In my considered view, a person finances large-scale transactions of purchase and sale of illegal drugs or finances such purchase and sale of limited number of transactions in illegal drugs - would be a of difference in degree. There is no doubt that possession and sale of illegal drugs are separately criminalized and penalized by other sections of the NDPS Act. 16. If we look at the ambit of Section 27A, read with sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 2 (viiib), it is clear that any person who finances illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and substances would come within the ambit of Section 27A and the sub-clause (iii) includes within its fold, purchase, sale, interstate import, etc., of such illegal drugs. 17. In my understanding, the statutory provision does not make a distinction with regard to the volume of such transactions as far as the criminal liability attached to such transactions or its financing is concerned. Therefore, in my considered opinion, if a person finances purchase, sale, interstate import, etc., of a limited number of transactions of illegal drugs, he could still be within the ambit of Section 27A of the Act. 18. In the instance case, the witnesses have supported the allegations of seizure of the contraband in the nature of heroin from the accused Page No.# 7/8 apprehended at the place of occurrence. One of such witnesses is the Magistrate, who has supported the allegations about the seizure of the illegal drugs. 19. The I.O. has procured a large number of bank statements pertaining to transactions between the accused persons. The statements show credit of money on numerous occasions into the account of co-accused Anand Pegu. Many of these transactions are highly suspicious and indicative of transfers from the side of the present accused petitioner per se. On the basis of the materials, therefore, it cannot be said that - there are no reasonable grounds to believe that present accused petitioner is not guilty of the offences, including offence under section 27A of the Act. 20. Applicability of the rigours of Section 37 statutorily bars grant of bail. However, even if the said provisions are not applicable, the other factors governing grant of would still be applicable and in a particular situation, even if the rigours are not found to be attracted - the Court, due to other factors, could still refuse bail. 21. In the instant case, one of the three accused sent up for trial is absconding; one accused namely, Anand Pegu, is on default bail and the petitioner herein is the third accused, who was arrested upon execution of NBWA after two years of issuance. 22. Needless to say that the alleged offences are of serious nature having detrimental impact on society, especially young generation. 23. In the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find sufficient merit to grant bail to the accused petitioner at this stage. It may be mentioned herein that only seven witnesses are listed in the charge-sheet. Page No.# 8/8 24. Consequently, in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion - the instant bail application stands rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant CHECKED & VERIFIED Digitally signed by Jumbi Bam Date: 2026.07.31 17:40:43 +05'30'