Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010236532025 2026:GAU-AS:169 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3479/2025 ABU MOHAMMAD TANJIR SON OF FAYZUR RAHMAN , R/O HEMARMUKH, ADARKUNA PT.I, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MISS. P M AHMED,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 06.01.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This instant bail application has been filed under section 483 of the Page No.# 2/4 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Abu Mohammad Tanjir, has prayed for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 28/2025 (arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 134/2025) under Section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act. 3. This is a subsequent bail petition, as an earlier bail petition was rejected on 06.08.2025 in BA /2070/2025 at the stage of investigation after perusal of the case diary. 4. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the truck who was arrested on 11.11.2025, primarily on the statement of the driver and handyman who are the co-accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier bail petition was rejected at the stage of investigation but in the meantime charge sheet has been submitted and in the completed investigation, the only incriminating materials is the statement of the co-accused. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks the benefit of principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, in which it has been laid down that in NDPS case, conviction cannot be based only on the statement of the co-accused. 6. Up-to-date scanned record was called for and the same has been received. 7. Upon perusing the materials of the scanned case record, the prosecution fairly submits that the materials collected during investigation against the petitioner are only the statements of the co-accused who are the driver and handyman. Page No.# 3/4 8. In view of the same and keeping in mind the principle laid down in the case of Toofan Singh (supra), it can be said that the test of section 37 of NDPS Act would be passed in favour of the accused and also, there would not be any bar as far as other factor is concerned, as the investigation has been completed and the case is poised for commencing of trial, if any. 9. In the given facts and circumstances, I come to the considered opinion that despite the serious nature of alleged offences, the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage, subject to conditions. 10. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 28/2025 (arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 134/2025) under Section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.75,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court (Special Judge, Sribhumi). 11. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) That the petitioner shall not abscond; (b) That the petitioner shall be available during trial; (c) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (d) That the petitioner shall not intimidate or harass or try to influence any witnesses; and (e) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any illegal activity, including under the NDPS Act. 12. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of Page No.# 4/4 bail. 13. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant