Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040013452026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : AB/103/2026 Kuladip Das Son of Shri Pabitra Das, a resident of Nathkuchi No.1, PO Nathkuchi, PS Pihu, Nalbari District, Assam 781355 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Sr. Adv, Pondit Ronya,Kirmani Lollen,Y Mugli,Terji Kamchi,Khoda Apa,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhalukpong P.S. Case No. 14/2026, registered under Sections 20(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. By an order dated 18.08.2026, this Court, while calling for the scanned copy of the Case Diary, had granted interim protection to the applicant in the event of his arrest, subject to certain conditions. One of the specific conditions imposed was that the applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating officer as and when called for. It was further made clear that the protection granted to the applicant was purely interim in nature and that the question of entitlement to anticipatory bail, including the applicability of the provisions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, would be considered upon perusal of the Case Diary and the material collected during the investigation. 4. The Case Diary has been produced and I have perused the same. 5. It is noticed that the applicant has not appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to the directions contained in the order dated 18.08.2026. The learned senior counsel, Mr. Tara, submits that the applicant could not appear before the police. 6. Thus, there is no dispute that the condition imposed by this Court requiring the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the investigating Page No.# 3/4 officer has not been complied with. 7. Apart from the aforesaid non-compliance with the conditions imposed while granting interim anticipatory bail, the material so far collected by the Investigating Officer discloses circumstances which require serious consideration. 8. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.2026, during the search, 31 white plastic polythene bags containing suspected cannabis, weighing approximately 155.105 kgs, were recovered and seized from a Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01GS- 9497. An Inner Line Permit bearing the name of the present applicant was also recovered from the said vehicle. 9. The Case Diary further contains the statement of the arrested co-accused, Shri Ashok Khataniar, wherein the role of the present applicant has been disclosed. The co- accused has stated that the present applicant directed him to hire the Bolero vehicle, travelled with him from the beginning of the journey, remained with the group during the journey towards Kalaktang, and travelled with the other persons involved in the movement of the suspected contraband. 10. The said statement of the co-accused, considered along with the recovery of the applicant's Inner Line Permit from the vehicle and the other material contained in the Case Diary, constitutes material which cannot be brushed aside while considering the applicant's prayer for anticipatory bail. 11. The quantity of cannabis allegedly recovered is 155.105 Kgs, which is a commercial quantity. Consequently, the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act assume significance. Thus, the Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 12. On consideration of the material collected so far and available in the Case Diary, Page No.# 4/4 this Court is unable to record the requisite satisfaction contemplated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. On the contrary, the material in the Case Diary discloses prima facie circumstances connecting the applicant with the transportation of the contraband articles. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicant may be necessary for effective and proper investigation of the case. Further, the failure of the applicant to appear before the investigating officer, despite the specific direction contained in the interim order dated 18.08.2026, also goes against the applicant. 13. It is also relevant that the interim protection granted on 18.08.2026 was expressly made subject to the applicant's cooperation with the investigation. The applicant having failed to comply with the said condition, the interim protection cannot be permitted to continue. 14. Under the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has not made out a case for extending the privilege of granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the interim protection granted to the applicant by order dated 18.08.2026 is hereby cancelled. 15. Consequently, the application under Section 482 of the BNSS is rejected. 16. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law. 17. The application for anticipatory bail stands disposed of. 18. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Sabnam Mepo (SPA)