Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010154912026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2101/2026 BISHWA DAS AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE. BADRA KANTA DAS RESIDENT OF VILL-NO. 1 GARUBANDHA P.S KACHUA P.O.-KACHUA DISTRICT- NAGAON PIN-781001 2: PRANAB KR DAS S/O- LATE PRASEN DAS VILLAGE BARJALI RAJAALI GAON P.S JAMUNASMUKH DIST HOJAI PIN 782435 3: SATYENDRA DAS S/O- LATE CHITANGSHU DAS VILL BALIRAM GAON P.S JAMUNAMUKH DIST HOJAI PIN 78243 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MR. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 24.08.2026 Page No.# 2/6 1. Heard Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioners namely, (i) Bishwa Das, (ii) Pranab Kr. Das, and (iii) Satyendra Das. 2. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 27.01.2026 in connection with NDPS P.S. Case No. 128/2026 arising out of Jakhalabandha Police Station Case No. 12/2026 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 that the petitioners are not at all associated with the seizure of the contraband in connection with this case. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, Pranab Kr. Das and Satyendra Das are not connected with the seizure of the contraband. The contraband was seized exclusively from petitioner No. 1, Bishwa Das. The investigation was conducted in an apathetic manner. When an offence prescribes stringent punishment, the investigation has to be conducted scrupulously but the investigation was conducted in a haphazard manner. 5. After detaining the vehicle seized in connection with this case, the vehicle was taken to the police station and kept in the police station. On the next morning, the articles were seized in connection with this case. The petitioner Page No.# 3/6 Nos. 2 and 3 were not in the crime scene. They were arrested from Dimapur. The seizure list reveals the signature of petitioner No. 1 only. The petitioners were arrested only on account of communication through CDR details. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 belong to affluent families and they are not required to transport contraband for their livelihood. Section 36 of the BNSS has also been violated. No signatures of the family members were taken on the format, vitiating arrest. Earlier, their bail petition has been dismissed and on change of circumstance, this application is filed disputing the CDR details. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions. 7. Per contra, the learned additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that CDR details cannot be relied to convict any accused can be safely brushed aside. All the petitioners were arrested after tracking CDR details and after discovering the contraband in the vehicle which was kept in secret chambers. The vehicle was seized at 2 a.m. midnight and this is the reason why the vehicle had to be kept in the police station as the mechanic could not extract the contraband from the secret chamber built inside the vehicle. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner Pranab Kr. Das's mother is the owner of the vehicle and he was wary of the secret chamber inside the vehicle Page No.# 4/6 built to transport illegal drugs. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the weight of the contraband does not constitute an offence under section 21(c) but is an offence under 21(b) of the NDPS Act is not relevant at this stage because in the earlier bail petition, the entire dispute relating to the weight of the contraband was dealt with by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 in B.A. No. 623/2026. 9. A prima facie case was found against Bishwa Das when he was confronted by the police, as his demeanor could reveal that he is complicit. It is further submitted that the mechanic could extract the contraband from the secret chamber on the next morning. It is further submitted that the records reveal that Pranab Kr. Das gave the vehicle to Bishwa Das after procuring the Heroin and then all the accused returned in two vehicles including the vehicle seized in connection with this case. 10. It is not only through the CDR details that the petitioners have been booked in connection with this offence. It is further submitted that this bail prayer may be considered at a later stage after examination of the seizure witnesses. The seizure witnesses are important witnesses and may be threatened by the petitioners. The format of Section 36 clearly reveals that the signatures of family members have been given on the format. . Page No.# 5/6 11. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 12. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. It is true that the petitioners have been behind bars for more than 6 months and trial has not yet commenced, but the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be ignored at this stage. Trial is at its nascent stage. Charge-sheet has been submitted and this case was fixed for copies on 23.07.2026. 13. Although the copy of the format under Section 36 does not reveal the signature of the informed person, the name and address of a witness has been mentioned on the Form under Section 36 and this witness, Subrata Das has given his signature on the Form under Section 48 of the BNS. Another name of witness on Form under Section 36 for Pranab Kr. Das is Babu Das and he has given his signature on Form under Section 48 of the BNS and Amit Kumar Das has given his signature in a similar manner for the accused Bishwa Das. 14. Thus, there is no violation of right to liberty as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. At this juncture, this Court is constrained to reject the bail application of the petitioners. However, the petitioners are directed to approach the Trial Court for bail if so advised, and the Trial Court may consider the bail application of the petitioners in accordance with law. The Trial Court also to make every Page No.# 6/6 endeavour to expedite the trial for speedy disposal of this case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant