Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010154312026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1721/2026 SHIRAJUL HOQUE S/O LATE AMJAD HUSSAIN R/O NO.2 BHANDARA P.S MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F U BARBHUIYA, MS S DAS,MR. R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 13.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/3 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for granting pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Shirajul Hoque, in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No. 52/2026, under Sections 21(b)/29 NDPS Act, 1985. 3. One accused, namely Nasirul Islam, was apprehended on 09.07.2026 while transporting heroin and 46.46 grams of heroin concealed in soap boxes was recovered from him. And during interrogation, he disclosed that he procured the same from the present petitioner and was transporting it for delivery to one Raja of Bangaigaon Town. 4. A raid was conducted at the house of the petitioner, but he was found absconding. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case involves an intermediate quantity and nothing was recovered from the house of the petitioner. 5. The police is seeking to arrest the petitioner on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. 6. The Case Diary as called for has been received and it appears that the arrested accused has implicated the petitioner as the supplier of the seized heroin. In “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,” reported in “(2021) 4 SCC 1.” It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence. 7. “State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar”, reported in “2022 Livelaw (SC) 622,” the Apex Court has held that to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really warranted and set aside the order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner therein, who Page No.# 3/3 was implicated by a co-accused in a case under the NDPS Act, 1985. 8. It was further held that the accused may be able to take advantage of the decision in Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial. 9. Since the arrested accused has clearly implicated the petitioner, and there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, and having regard to the nature of the offence, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is rejected. 10. Petition stands dismissed. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant