Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010163382026 2026:GAU-AS:12932 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2252/2026 BANDHAN BASUMATARY S/O LATE MADHAB BASUMATARY, R/O NAOHERUA, P.S AND P.O MAZBAT, DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM- 784507 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : N J DAIMARI, MR P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 07.09.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/7 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the petitioner in connection with Special (N) Case No. 81/2026 pending before the Special Judge, Udalguri corresponding to Mazbat P.S. Case No. 68/2025, u/s 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. As per the prosecution story, the FIR was lodged on 20.12.2025 by SI Kuladip Mazumdar (in-charge, Lalpani OP), on 19.12.2025 at around 8 pm, specifid information was allegedly received that the accused/applicant had stored a large quantity of suspected Ganja in a makeshift house situated at Village Baithali, under Mazbat P.S. Upon departing for the location at 10:30 pm and cordoning off the premises around 11 pm, the police party allegedly apprehended the accused/applicant while he was attempting to flee. Search of the makeshift house led to the recovery of 10 white plastic bags containing suspected dry leafy Ganja total weighing 35.07 kg and the applicant was arrested on 20.12.2025 and produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Udalguri. The applicant was remanded to police custody for 2 days and subsequently sent to judicial custody on 22.12.2025, where he has been incarcerated ever since. Subsequently the charge sheet was submitted on 27.02.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made a twofold submission. The Page No.# 3/7 first submission is that, as per the search and seizure list, what has allegedly been recovered has been described as "suspected dry leafy cannabis (ganja)". The inventory prepared before the Magistrate also describes the seized articles similarly. On the basis of the said description, it is submitted that the same does not meet the definition of ganja, as no flowering or fruiting tops are stated to have been recovered or present in the articles so recovered. Secondly, it is submitted that even if such flowering or fruiting tops were present, it is only the weight of such flowering or fruiting tops that has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the weight of the seized articles. It appears from the material, including the seizure list and the inventory, that no such separation of fruiting and flowering tops from the stems and leaves of the seized ganja has been made, and therefore, there is no material to show that the weight of the seized ganja would place it within the category of commercial quantity. 5. A perusal of the seizure list as well as the inventory shows that the seized articles have been described as "dry leafy cannabis (ganja)", from which it cannot be ascertained whether the same included fruiting or flowering tops. However, an appraisal of the FSL report reveals that the samples received by the FSL contained dry plant material with fruiting tops. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this count appears to be without basis. As far as the second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for Page No.# 4/7 the petitioner is concerned, it would be apt to refer to the definition of "ganja" as provided in Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act: "ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated." 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that seeds and leaves are to be excluded when they are not accompanied by the flowering or fruiting tops. Conversely, it means that when the seized articles consist of flowering or fruiting tops along with seeds and leaves, the whole of it is to be treated as ganja. There is nothing in the aforesaid provision to suggest that even when the recovered articles consist of flowering or fruiting tops along with seeds and leaves, the former are to be separated from the latter in order to arrive at the weight of the seized articles. Such an exercise is practically impossible at times when a huge quantity of ganja consisting of flowering or fruiting tops along with seeds and leaves is seized, and it could not have been the intention of the legislature to impose such an impractical burden upon the authorities. It is for this reason that the statute has been purposefully worded in the aforesaid manner, and only one meaning can be derived therefrom: whenever the seized articles contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, the accompanying seeds and leaves are also to be counted for the Page No.# 5/7 purpose of calculating the total weight for categorization as a commercial quantity or otherwise. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mujabil Vs GNCT Delhi reported in (2026) SCC Online DEL 1551, wherein a single bench had held as follows: 21. From the framework of the entire NDPS Act and a reading of S. 2(iii)(b), it emerges that if the material seized is a heterogenous mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B) would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity. 8. With utmost respect, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the aforesaid view for the reasons already discussed hereinabove. 9. Furthermore, Section 2(iii)(c) of the NDPS Act reads as follows: "(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom;" 10. From the definition in sub-clause (c) above, any mixture of charas defined under sub-clause (a) and ganja defined under sub-clause (b) is also to be treated as cannabis, whether or not accompanied by any neutral material. From the said sub-clause (c), therefore, the intention of the legislature to include any Page No.# 6/7 neutral material along with ganja as part of the ganja, charas, or a mixture thereof, as the case may be, is very much evident. 11. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. The second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged recovery of ganja was made from a makeshift house in which the petitioner used to stay, but the house itself is situated on a piece of land belonging to another person. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge of any such ganja being stored in the aforesaid makeshift house. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner, having admitted that he used to reside in the said house, makeshift or otherwise, cannot claim ignorance of the presence of the seized ganja in the said house. The land on which the house is situated may belong to some other person, but it may have been rented out to the petitioner, and therefore, it is the petitioner who is liable for the presence of contraband items in the said house. 14. I find force in the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard. 15. In view of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner that he used to reside Page No.# 7/7 in the said house, and furthermore, since it was admittedly a makeshift house, and not such a large building that contraband could lie in some unseen corner unknown to the occupant, the petitioner cannot be expected to be unawareness of its presence. 16. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the recovery of a commercial quantity of ganja from the conscious possession of the petitioner, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely attracted. Considering the same, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. 17. The bail petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant