Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010244972025 2026:GAU-AS:507 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3585/2025 SHAMIM AHMED TAPADAR SON OF ABDUL HAMID TAPADAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALAKHAURI, UNDER PATHARKANDI POLICE STATION DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. M S HUSSAIN,MR. D K BAIDYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 09.01.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed u/s 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for Page No.# 2/5 grant of bail to the petitioner namely, Shamim Ahmed Tapadar in connection with Patharkandi P.S Case No. 133/2025 registered u/s 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The main contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested 3(three) months after the alleged recovery of the statements of the co-accused and in terms of the principle laid down in the case of Toofan Singh V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, that aspect can be taken into account for the purpose including the adjudication u/s 37 of the NDPS Act, which is required in this case due to alleged commercial quantity being involved. 4. The prosecution has fairly submitted that the main incriminating materials against the petitioner after the investigation resulting in a charge- sheet are the incriminating statements of the co-accused. However, it is also submitted by the learned prosecution that, apart from the incriminating statements of co-accused, there are also incriminating CDR pertaining to phone calls between the present accused petitioner and other co-accused. 5. In this context, I peruse the charge-sheet filed upon completion of investigation. I have perused the table listing the documents and material objects, indicated as being relied upon by the charge-sheet. I did not find the CDR documents or materials in the list of relied upon documents and material objects. 6. The aspect of incriminating CDR has been narrated in para 7 of the charge-sheet. It is stated that frequent communication was observed between Johorul Hoque and Abul Hussain prior to interception of the vehicle, and that the said Abul Hussain also had regular contact with Page No.# 3/5 petitioner Shamim Ahmed Tapadar and that, it establishes a network between Abul Hussain and Shamim Ahmed Tapadar. It is also stated that on 25.05.2025, prior to interception of the vehicle and seizure of drugs, the present accused petitioner Shamim Ahmed Tapadar and co-accused Abul Hussain were in frequent communication. That, the said Abul Hussain was using two SIM cards, and one of the SIM cards, being 7099258550, was seized from his possession. It is also stated that CDR data corroborates the statements of co-accused Jaharul and Joinul Hoque, thereby establishing a network between Abul Hussain and Shamim Ahmed Tapadar, the present petitioner, in the drugs trade. 7. Communications between the present accused petitioner and other co-accused around the time of the alleged offences definitely raises the needle of suspicion. However, in the absence of contents or transcripts of the said telephone conversations, it is not possible to truly say as to whether they relate to the alleged offences and therefore, whether they are indeed incriminating in nature vis-a-vis the alleged offences. 8. In such view of the matter, therefore, it has to be said that the main incriminating materials against the present petitioner remains the incriminating statements of the co-accused. The principle of Toofan Singh (supra), lays down that accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused. 9. Therefore, after completion of investigation, if the main incriminating materials against the accused person is the statement of co-accused, then perhaps the test of section 37 of the NDPS Act can be said to be passed in favour of the accused petitioner. Page No.# 4/5 10. As for the provisions of the NDPS Act, even if section 37 applies, other provisions of the criminal procedure pertaining to bail would still be applicable. Therefore, even if the test of section 37 of NDPS Act is passed in favour of the accused, there might still be other factors militating against grant of bail. 11. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is stated to have been in custody ever since his arrest on 08.09.2025. It is also contended that some co-accused have already been granted bail. 12. Thus, considering the various aspects of the matter, in my considered opinion, the petitioner herein can also be granted bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Patharkandi P.S Case No. 133/2025 registered u/s 21(c)/25/29 of the 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. 14. 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. Page No.# 5/5 15. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 16. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant