Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010176022026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2471/2026 RAJU MAHATO AND ANR S/O LATE GANESH MAHATO, R/O VILL. GOLANDI HABI, P.O. AND P.S. UDALGURI, DIST. UDALGURI, DIST. UDALGURI BTC, ASSAM, PIN 2: SANJIB DAIMARY S/O JOHAN DAIMARY R/O VILL. JAYSIDHI NO. 1 P.O. BALIJURI P.S. SOOTEA PIN DIST. BISWANATH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 25.09.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the petitioners namely (1) Raju Mahato and (2) Sanjib Daimary, who were arrested on 07.02.2026 in connection with Rangapara G.R.P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/4 02/2026 (Corresponding to Special N.D.P.S. Case No.21/2026) registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)c/ 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The allegations contained in the FIR are that both the petitioners were apprehended on 07.02.2026 by the GRPS in the Rangapara North Railway Station from inside the Donyi Polo Express. One petitioner was sitting on a pithu bag (back pack) and while the other petitioner had a pithu bag (back pack) on his lap. Upon search, following due procedure, suspected ganja was recovered from both the two bags. While one bag contained 13.750 kgs and the other bag contained 13.675 kgs. 4. As the total weight of the ganja recovered from the possession of both the petitioners exceeded the limit for commercial quantity, i.e. 20 kgs, the case was booked under Sections 20(b)(ii)c/ 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 5. Presently, the trial of the case is under way, after charge having been framed under section 20(b)(ii)(C) against both the accused persons and three witnesses have already been examined. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the individual quantity of ganja recovered from the accused persons separately was below the threshold of commercial quantity, the present case must be treated as one pertaining to intermediate quantity and therefore, the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. Therefore, considering the length of detention of about six months, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nadeem Ahmed vs. The State of West Bengal (2025 INSC 993) and another decision of the Division Bench of this court in Page No.# 3/4 Bipan Kumar and another vs. The State of Assam: G.A.H.C.01002200972023. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that as per the case diary, both the petitioners had purchased the Ganja from Udalguri and had travelled by the same train and both were apprehended together and it is further revealed that they had intended to sell the same at Harmoti for profit. 9. It is further submitted that the weight of the Ganja carried in each of the bags by both the petitioners are almost identical i.e. just above 13 and a half kgs, which is also an indicator that the petitioners were jointly possessing the said contraband. 10. I have given my due considerations to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the authorities cited in the TCR and material available in the TCR. 11. It appears that although the I.O. had submitted the charge sheet under Section 20(B)(2)(C)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, the learned trial court had framed charges against both the accused persons only under Section 20(B)(2)(C) NDPS Act, but dropped section 29 of the NDPS Act pertaining to abatement and criminal conspiracy, thereby prima facie indicating that the learned trial court did not find sufficient material indicating any kind of prior concert between the two petitioners in committing the offences under the NDPS Act as alleged. 12. A perusal of the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses also do not indicate anything to the effect that the two petitioners knew each other or were jointly carrying out the operation of purchasing drugs in commercial quantity with the intent to sell it for profit. Therefore, there appears to be some force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. The purport of the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the Page No.# 4/4 petitioners is to the effect that in the absence of evidence that the accused persons were acting pursuant to a conspiracy or that they were abetting each other. It is the individual quantity of contraband recovered from the individual accused that is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining whether the quantity of contraband recovered would amount to commercial quantity. 14. Although both the decision cited above were in respect of appeals wherein all the evidence already been led, in the present case, since no charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been framed, the prosecution would not be expected claim in this regard lend evidence therender for the purpose of establishing the said offence. 15. In view of the above and having regard to the prosecution case itself that the individual quantities of ganja recovered from the petitioners was less than commercial quantity, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail having regard to the period of detention and also the stage of the trial. 16. Consequently, the prayer for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/ each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 17. Further conditions to be imposed are left to the learned trial Court. 18. Bail petition stands allowed as above and is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant