Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010167972026 2026:GAU-AS:12233 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2287/2026 DONBOK MAWLONG S/O- P SYIEM R/O- UMSHAPROH P.S- UMIAM PIN-793116 DISTRICT- RI BHOI, MEGHALAYA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P P MEDHI, MS. U ROY,MAYURI GOGOI,MR G BARGAYARY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. for the State respondent. 2. Invoking Section 483 BNSS, the two petitioner herein, namely, Donbok Mawlong seeking regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No.87/2025 in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No.607/2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on 20.12.2025. 3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 19.12.2025, lodged by S.I. C. Baruah of Basistha P.S. It is stated in the FIR that a reliable information was received from secret source that two persons were coming from Meghalaya in a commercial Maruti Alto vehicle, registration No. ML-10C- 7573 illegally carrying a large consignment of ganja for the purpose of selling. GDE No. 348 of the same date was made at 2:20 P.M. and the informant, after being authorized proceeded for a search operation and during the Naka checking, one Maruti Alto vehicle of the said number was intercepted carrying a driver and passenger inside the vehicle and in the presence of independent witnesses, the search was conducted after following due formalities and the search revealed four nos. of white plastic sacks containing ganja, which after weighing was found to be totalling 29.474 kgs. Two mobile handsets were also seized. Thereafter, the FIR Page No.# 3/5 was lodged and case registered and subjected to investigation. 4. It appears that the investigation was completed resulting in a charge-sheet vide C.S. No. 12/2026 dated 17.01.2026 under Section 20(b) (ii)(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. Five nos. of witnesses are listed in the charge- sheet. Charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner and another co-accused, who was stated to have been travelling in the vehicle along with him. 5. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner, herein, was a driver of the vehicle and he was not in conscious possession of any contraband being carried in the vehicle by the co-accused, who was a passenger whom he was carrying in the commercial vehicle. 6. It is submitted that that the petitioner is a victim of circumstances and therefore, his bail may be considered also keeping in mind the length of detention and the stage of the case upon completion of investigation. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner cites a recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyjeet Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh, (SLP (Crl.) No. 2401/2026) contending that in the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to grant bail pending the trial. 7. The case diary along with the charge-sheet has been received. 8. The learned Addl. P.P. Mr. P. Borthakur submits that prosecution disputes the contention of the petitioner that he was a victim of circumstances and that the materials reveal complicity along with the other co-accused in carrying the contraband for the purpose of selling and that from his statement it is also revealed that such activities were carried out on previous occasions as well. Page No.# 4/5 9. I have perused the materials and considered the rival submissions. I have carefully gone through the statements of the two purportedly independent witnesses, both of whom have stated about the recovery of the ganja. 10. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate conducting the sampling procedure inventory procedures reveals the quantity of ganja to be 29.474 Kgs. 11. In this context, it may be mentioned that a quantity of ganja exceeding 20 kg falls in the bracket of commercial quantity wherein, the rigors of Section 37 have to be tested for the adjudication of bail. The complainant and other witnesses part of the search team supported the prosecution story projected so far. The forensic examination returned a positive finding for cannabis consumption. Though the statement of the petitioner as accused recorded by the police is not admissible but his statements portray a different story from the one projected in the bail petition about being victim of circumstances. 12. On the basis of the materials, this Court is of the considered opinion that the test of Section 37 is not passed in favour of the accused- petitioner. I also find the decision in Satyajeet Bhoi (supra) to be distinguishable on facts, as in that case, the petitioner was in custody for a much longer period and the trial had not progressed. 13. In this case, the case is stated to be poised for consideration of charge on 09.09.2026. In any case, in view of the applicability of the rigors of Section 37, the statutory Bar envisaged under Section 37 prohibiting grant of bail would apply at this stage and this Court is also of Page No.# 5/5 the considered view that the stage has not yet been reached where constitutional provisions under Article 21 would apply to defeat the statutory restrictions in terms of the principles laid down in Union of India Vs P.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713. 14. Consequently, in the given facts and circumstances, the bail petition stands rejected. 15. Registry is directed to send back the original case diary and case record which has come from the learned Court below. JUDGE Comparing Assistant