Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010173162025 2026:GAU-AS:270 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2544/2025 GULZAR HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL KUDDUS R/O KADAMGURI P.S. RUPAHIAHAT DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 08.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. S.M. Abdullah P, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail of the accused/petitioner namely Gulzar Hussain, in connection with Rupahihat P.S. Case No. 239/2025, under Section 61(1)/ 123/ 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 21 (a)/ 22(c)/ 25/ 29/ 8 (c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The brief of the case is that on 07.07.2025, at about 08:55 am, the Police Station of Rupahihat P.S. intercepted one Hero Scooty bearing registration No. AS02AU4471, and apprehended two persons namely Md. Gulzar Hussain (present petitioner) and Abu Nasar, and from their possession recovered 11 numbers of syrup bottles (each bottle 100 ML), each marked as Tripolidine Hydrochloride & Codeine Phosphate (I-Koff) alongwith cash amount of Rs. 11240/- which is seized in the presence of the witnesses and also one black colour polythene, containing 10 nos. of plastic container containing suspected heroin. 4. The net weight of the suspected heroin was found to be 0.61 grams excluding the weight of the polythene pouch and the weight of the syrup containing suspected Codeine was found to be 1100 ML Page No.# 3/5 excluding the weight of the bottles, which amounts to commercial quantity. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the weight of the Codeine is only marginally above intermediate quantity and it is a borderline case with respect to the minimum prescribed quantity of commercial quantity category. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may not be attracted in the present case. 6. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Nirmala through her mother namely Shanti Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh through Sho Police Station Sadar, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine HP 2124, wherein bail was granted after taking in to consideration, amongst others, the fact that the weight of the seized articles was marginally higher than intermediate quantity. 7. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Vinay Sharma Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi in Bail Application No. 1626 of 2025, wherein, amongst other factors, the Court considered the fact that quantity of recovered ganja is marginally above the threshold quantity categorized as commercial. 8. While it is true that in the aforesaid cases, the respective High Courts have granted bail to the petitioners after considering the fact that, amongst other factors, the seized quantity was only marginally higher than the minimum threshold for commercial quantity and the fact that there may be error in weighing the contraband (ganja in the said case), in the present case, what has been recovered are bottles of Page No.# 4/5 prescription drugs which are in sealed form, each containing 100 ML of Codeine and prima facie, there does not appear to be any error of measurement and in the facts and circumstances of the case, such error cannot be readily presumed, more so, as the weighing and seizing was done in the presence of independent witnesses. 9. Since the concerned notification issued under Section 2 of the NDPS Act has categorized and specified the quantities of various drugs which would be regarded as commercial, the normal rule is for the Court to adhere to the limits as specified while deciding the category under which the seized articles would fall, unless cogent reasons can be assigned for departure from such requirement. 10. Hence, the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the seized articles may be treated to be of intermediate quantity cannot be accepted. 11. From the material available in the Case Diary, it prima facie appears that a commercial quantity of contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner and hence, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted. 12. On the basis of the materials available in the Case Diary, there is no scope to hold that the petitioner is prima facie not guilty of the alleged offence involving possession of commercial quantity of Codeine Phosphate. 13. Consequently, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. Page No.# 5/5 14. The petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant