Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010022952026 2026:GAU-AS:3466 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./375/2026 MD ABDUL SALAM ALIAS SALAM UDDIN SON OF ABDUL SATTAR R/O VILL- BAGARSANGAN P.S. SRIBHUMI, DIST. SRIBHUMI,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 09-03-2026 Heard Mr. H.R Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting regular bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Abdul Salam @ Salem Uddin Page No.# 2/5 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 69/2025 arising out of Karimganj P.S Case No. 290/2025 under section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act pending at the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sribhumi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it will be evident from the charge-sheet that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of statement made by the co-accused and also on the analysis of the call detail records, which the prosecution has submitted, establishes direct contact of the co-accused and the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a settled position in law that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of the statement of the accused and further, the call detail records are also not enough grounds for the conviction of an accused. The learned counsel has further submitted that in similar circumstances, this court has held similarly placed accused to be entitled to the benefit of privilege of bail and therefore, the present petitioner also deserves the privilege. 4. The learned APP has submitted that in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused were not similarly situated. In the present case, the vehicle of the petitioner had been utilized for transporting the contraband and moreover, the call detail records show the presence of the petitioner in the vicinity of the place from where the recovery of the contrabands had been made. He further submits that the recovery of the contraband being of commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would come into play. 5. The relevant Trial Court records received have been perused and the Page No.# 3/5 submissions made at the bar have been considered. It is seen that the statement of the co-accused was the reason for the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the motorcycle of the petitioner, which was used for transporting the contrabands was also a factor. The call detail records do not as such indicate the guilt of the petitioner. There is no recovery from the petitioner and there is nothing else to suggest the guilt of the petitioner or that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to commit the offence while on bail. 6. Hence the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in the considered opinion of this Court is not applicable to this case. The petitioner has been behind the bars for 94 days and he is ready to face trial. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioner named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 69/2025 arising out of Karimganj P.S Case No. 290/2025 under section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, who shall be a resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Authority and the jurisdictional court and at least one of whom shall have a landed moveable property in his name within the jurisdiction of the learned jurisdictional court and at least one shall be a Government servant. The grant of bail to the accused/petitioner shall be subject to the following conditions; (i) He shall surrender his identification proof before the I.O with Aadhar card/pan card etc. Page No.# 4/5 (ii) He shall give appropriate proof of permanent resident before the learned jurisdiction court to his satisfaction which may be verified as may be deemed fit. (iii) He will not leave the jurisdiction of the I.O or the jurisdictional court without prior written permission. iv) The petitioner shall not hamper or temper with the evidence of the instant case in any manner. v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi) The petitioner shall appear before the learned jurisdictional court and the I.O as and when required and directed to do so. vii) The learned jurisdictional Court, shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the trial. viii) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. ix) The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed upon the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. x) The petitioner has been granted bail only with regard to Karimganj P.S Page No.# 5/5 Case No. 290/2025 and the bail bond shall be considered by the learned Trial Court. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant