Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010276792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4058/2025 SABIR AHMED ABDUL KHALIQUE VILL. DALORPAR, P.S. PATHARKANDI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M S MAZUMDER, A W BARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 30.09.2026 Heard Mr. A.M.S. Mazumdar, learned counsel, appearing for the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 217/2025, registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. An FIR was lodged on 19.09.2025 before the Officer-in-Charge, Patharkandi Police Station, lodged through one Pratap Singha, SI, of Patharkandi Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on receipt of secret information, about 1:40 PM on 19.09.2025, General Diary Entry was made, vide GD Entry No. 08 dated 19.09.2025; that the police team, after taking due care of the legal provisions, as required to, on reaching near Junaipati village on NH-8, the suspected person was cordoned. On service of notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act, the accused-applicant disclosed his identity as Sabir Ahmed, and upon search, white and green color plastic packet was recovered from his possession. From there, 34 blue color plastic packets containing approx. 6,800 tablets, total weight 692 grams, suspected to be Yaba tablets, and 9 packets of dry peas and arhar dal from a medium size packets were recovered; that the suspected contraband was tested using a drug detection kit, and it had given positive results for drugs. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the case was registered as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 217/2025, under the aforementioned Sections. 5. The accused-applicant was arrested on the same date. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet on 29.11.2025, and charges were framed against the accused-applicant on 04.02.2026. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been arrested without complying the mandates of Section 47 and 48 of BNSS, and the accused-applicant has been in detention for the last 377 days. He submits that although the prosecution has named seven (7) PWs, none of the witnesses has been examined till date. He submits that, in view of the non- compliance of Section 47 and 48 of BNSS, as well as his long detention, the accused- Page No.# 3/3 applicant should be granted bail in this case. 7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail by the accused-applicant, submitting that large quantity of contraband has been seized, and as such, at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and has also perused the materials available on record, including the TCR. 9. It is seen that Section 47 and 48 of BNSS notices have been duly served upon the accused-applicant as well as applicant's family member. It is also seen that, none of the PWs have been examined till date. It is seen that the quantity of the contraband recovered is of commercial quantity and the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is squarely applicable in the instant case. 10. Taking into consideration of the fact that charges have been framed only on 04.02.2026 and none of the PWs has been examined as yet, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the accused-applicant in this case at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the instant Bail Application is rejected. JUDGE Miriam Degu (SPA)