Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010073802026 2026:GAU-AS:12113 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1033/2026 RUHUL AMIN S/O ADDUL MOTIN R/O VILL- POWAMARA P.S. SRIBHUMI DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 24.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. D. P.Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Ruhul Amin praying for grant of bail in connection with Sribhumi Case No.17/2026 under Sections 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act. The said case, after investigation resulted in a charge sheet vide NDPS case No.41/2026. It has Page No.# 2/3 reached the stage of commencement of trial. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner was arrested on 25.01.2026 and since then he is under trial detention, presently in judicial custody. It is submitted that the only incriminating materials against him is the statement of co-accused that the said co-accused is doing business of illegal drugs in collusion with the present petitioner. 4. The scanned record is available. 5. The informant has supported the allegations about seizure of narcotic drugs (suspected YABA tablets falling in the bracket of commercial quantity) from two accused persons, namely, Sairul Ahmed and Kajol Uddin. 6. The learned counsel has drawn attention to the Court to the interrogation report of the two main accused persons from where it is revealed that they stated about the involvement of one Saduk and that no other information was revealed from their interrogations. 7. However, in the statements of the two accused persons available in the scanned record both of them have stated that they were running the business of illegal narcotic drugs around Sribhumi town along with Ruhul Amin the present petitioner. 8. I have perused the seizure memo as well as the other materials pertaining to the seizure. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that upon perusing the case record he has not found incriminating materials other than the statement of the two main arrested accused stating about the involvement of the present petitioner. 10. It is well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Page No.# 3/3 Toofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 4 SCC 1 that it will be impermissible to record a conviction solely on the basis of statement of the accused. The said decision was rendered in a case pertaining to offence under the NDPS Act. 11. In view of the nature of materials available against the present petitioner as indicated above, the test of Section 37 perhaps would be passed in his favour and therefore, there would not be any statutory bar towards granting on bail. As far as the other factors are concerned, this Court notices that investigation is completed and the petitioner has been in custody since 25.01.2026. In the said circumstances, I allow his bail petition 12. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with two suitable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall be available for the trial if one commences; (b) shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (c) shall not commit any illegal activities or offenses including any offenses under the NDPS Act; 13. Violation of the bail conditions will entail cancellation of the bail petition. 14. In view of the above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant