Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010258152025 2026:GAU-AS:207 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3760/2025 JAHIYA KHAN S/O SANGAIYUMPHAM MAIRENKHULP.O. WANGJING, P.S. THOUBAL, DIST. THOUBAL, MANIPUR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SC, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, MR. O ULLAH,R J OJAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. M. Rahman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/10 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jahiya Khan, who has been detained behind the bars since 04.09.2025 in connection with NCB Crime No. 10/2025 under Sections 8(c)/22 (c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 25.07.2025, the officials of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) had conducted a search operation in the Nagaland Express (Train No. 15670) at Platform No. 1 of the Hojai Railway Station in between 01:40 hours to 10:00 hours and during search operation, 33.617 kg of methamphetamine tablets were recovered from the possession of one Santosh Kumar Tamil Selvan. 4. The said accused was arrested from the place of seizure and later on, during preliminary interrogation, the arrested accused implicated one another co-accused namely, Rakesh Ahammed regarding his complicity in the alleged offence. The said Rakesh Ahammed as well as arrested accused Santosh Kumar Tamil Selvan were also employed in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Later on the basis of the statements made by the co-accused, the present petitioner was arrested on 03.09.2025. In his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985, the petitioner confessed regarding his involvement in supplying of the seized contraband. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the offence alleged in this case. He submits that the petitioner was arrested from Guwahati Airport, when he was going from Agartala to Manipur. He also submits that nothing was recovered from his possession. He further submits that Page No.# 3/10 though the seizure of the contraband was made in Hojai, however on the day of incident the petitioner was engaged in his duty at Agartala and in support of his submission he has produced the duty roster of 23.07.2025 to 25.07.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present petitioner has been arrested in this case merely on the basis of statements of the co-accused and no other materials are there against him. He also submits that though the NCB has alleged that the Call Detail Record (CDR) of the telephonic conversation between the present petitioner and the co-accused implicates him in this case, however, as the co-accused were also the employees of CRPF, it would be natural to have conversation with the colleagues. However, he submits that there is nothing on record to show as to what conversation was made between the co-accused and the present petitioner as there is no voice recording relating to the conversation made between them. 7. He submits that merely on the basis of CDR which indicates that the petitioner had telephonic conversation with the co-accused, from whose possession the contraband was recovered, is not sufficient to implicate the present petitioner in an offence regarding possession of commercial quantity of contraband. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in the case of “Sareed Ahmed Ghani Vs. Union of India” (order dated 18.10.2025 in Bail Application No. 21/2025). 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Page No.# 4/10 the petitioner has not received any money from the co-accused and even if there is any material to show that any amount has been deposited by the co-accused in his account, this in itself would not be sufficient to implicate him in the offence alleged in this case. He submits that since the co-accused were also employees of the Central Reserve Police Force, there may be a few monetary transactions between them. He submits that what is important is the amount of money transacted between them. He submits that mere fact of simply providing money for a particular transaction or other transaction would not in itself be sufficient to show that the said money has been accepted by the petitioner in connection with the contraband which has been recovered in this case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the High Court of Bombay in the case of “Rhea Chakravarti Vs. Union of India” (order dated 07.10.2020 in Criminal Bail Application No. 2386/2020). 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice under Section 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was not duly served on the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioner. He submits that on perusal of the notice under Section 48 which was served on the relative of the petitioner, it appears that though the said notice was addressed to the wife of the petitioner, namely, Sanathoibi Begum, however, same was shown to have been received by one Mohammad Anwar Khan, who is stated to be brother-in-law of the present petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said person is not the brother-in-law of the petitioner. He also submits that the wife of the petitioner is not acquainted with English language and Page No.# 5/10 there is no indication in the notice under Section 48 to show that the content of the said notice was explained to the noticee in the language understood by her/him. 10. He also submits that the notice under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to the petitioner was served on him after he was produced before the Magistrate after his arrest which is in violation of the guideline of the Apex Court in the case of “Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharastra & Anr.” reported in“2025 INSC 1288.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been employed in CRPF for last 23 years and he does not have any criminal antecedent and he has been arrested only on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused which is not admissible in evidence in an offence under the provision of NDPS Act, 1985. In support of his submissions, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.” 12. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Keyal has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He submits that all the accused persons arrested in this case are the employees of Central Reserve Police Force and the material on record clearly indicates the manner in which they have committed the alleged offence. 13. He submits that there are sufficient materials in the Case Diary, including the confessional statement of the petitioner as well as the co- accused, wherein, the modus operandi of committing the similar offences Page No.# 6/10 has been clearly explained. He further submits that in pursuant to the information received by the Investigating Officer, on the basis of confessional statement, during further investigation, the details of bank account of the petitioner has also been collected, which clearly indicates that huge amount of money was deposited in the account of the present petitioner by the co-accused, namely, Dulal Mia as well as Rakesh Ahammed. 14. He further submits that there is a clear confession in the Case Diary regarding the fact that the present petitioner has earned about 25 Lakhs by involving in the offence relating to trafficking/supply of methamphetamine tablets. He further submits that investigation to verify the same is going on. 15. The learned Standing Counsel, NCB has submitted that under similar circumstances, a co-ordinate bench of this court while considering the bail application by the co-accused Rakesh Ahammed has rejected his bail application. He submits that the present petitioner also stands on similar footing like that of Rakesh Ahammed. He further submits that the content of notice under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 was communicated in the language understood by the noticee. The learned Standing Counsel, NCB has also produced the Case Diary of the case. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record, including the Case Diary produced by the learned Standing Counsel, NCB. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. Page No.# 7/10 17. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. 18. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that it is not even the case of the prosecution side that the seized contraband was recovered from the present petitioner. The prosecution case is clear in this aspect. It is their case that the seized contraband was recovered from the co- accused Santosh Kumar Tamil Selvan. 19. However, the materials collected during investigation indicates that the present petitioner was the co-supplier of the contraband which was recovered from the possession of co-accused Santosh Kumar Tamil Selvan and the petitioner has received a huge sum of money for the said contraband. Though, the co-accused have implicated the present petitioner in the offence alleged in this case and the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS of the present petitioner also implicate him in the case, however, even if the said statements does not have any evidentiary value at this stage, however, it does gives a lead to the prosecution side to collect further evidence in light of the facts disclosed in said statement. The investigation agency has tried to pursue the money trail in respect of the contraband seized in this case. In this connection, huge amount of money was found to be deposited in the bank account of the present petitioner by the other co-accused persons. 20. The amount of money for which no explanation has been given by the present petitioner amounts to about Rs. 15 Lakhs. It is not a case where there was only occasional telephonic conversation between the Page No.# 8/10 present petitioner and the other co-accused. The analysis of Call Detail Record (CDR) shows that there were several telephonic conversations between the present petitioner and the co-accused as well as money to the extent of Rs. 15 Lakhs have been deposited in his account from the other co-accused. 21. Thus, as stated earlier, though the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act does not have any evidentiary value in the trial of a case involving offence under NDPS Act, 1985. It does give the lead to the investigating agency to pursue the investigation in a particular line and accordingly, the investigating agency appears to be on the right track in collecting the incriminating evidence against the present petitioner. Failure on the part of the petitioner to explain huge deposit of money (approximately Rs. 15 Lakhs) in his account from the other co-accused raises a strong suspicion against him regarding his involvement in the offence alleged in this case and since this case is still in the investigation stage and statutory period of detention is not complete, the petitioner would not get benefit of the fact that he was arrested merely on the basis of statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 22. Under such circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that this is not a case where this court may arrive at a reasonable satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence of which he has been accused in this case. 23. Regarding the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner of non-compliance of mandatory provisions contained in Section 47 as well Page No.# 9/10 as Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 is concerned, it appears on perusal of the notice under Section 47 of BNSS 2023, which was served on the petitioner that same bears the signatures of Jahiya Khan and the said notice does contain the grounds of his arrest in connection with this case. Though, during the hearing of this bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has made submission that the said notice was served on the petitioner after he was produced before the Magistrate. However, in his bail application, no such plea has been taken by the petitioner.Hence, this court does not deem it proper to consider the said plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 24. Regarding the submission relating to the non-compliance of the requirement of Section 48 of BNSS is concerned, the bail application does not contain any plea regarding such non-compliance. Moreover, on perusal of the copy of notice under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 issued to the wife of the present petitioner, it appears that same was received by the brother of the wife of the present petitioner and in the bail application, no such plea has been taken by the petitioner that the person who received the notice namely, Mohammad Akhtar Khan was not the brother-in-law of the petitioner. Hence, this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner also remains unsubstantiated, therefore,it does not merit any consideration. 25. The amount of money deposited in the bank account of the present petitioner by the co-accused persons as well as the analysis of Call Detail Record (CDR) raises very strong doubt against the petitioner regarding his complicity in the alleged offence and therefore, at this stage, Page No.# 10/10 this court cannot come to a definite conclusion that he is not guilty of the offence of which he has been accused in this case, therefore, the petitioner fails to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in this case. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 26. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant