Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010033632026 2026:GAU-AS:5297 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./597/2026 TAJ UDDIN ALIAS TAJ UDDIN MIRA S/O. YUNUS AHMED R/O. VILLAGE KANCHANPUR PART - 1, P.O. AND P.S.PANCHGRAM, DISTRICT-HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P KATAKI, MS. J GHOSH,MR. JUNM LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 08.04.2026 Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Page No.# 2/3 2. This petition under Section 483 BNSS is filed by the petitioner, Taj Uddin @ Taj Uddin Mira seeking regular bail in connection with Special Case (NDPS) Case No.76/2025, under Sections 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (NDPS), Sribhumi corresponding to Badarpur P.S. Case No.153/2025. 3. The said case had arisen out of Badarpur P.S. case No. 153/2025, which after completion of investigation was charge-sheeted under the aforesaid penal provision against, four accused persons including the present petitioner. 4. The alleged recovery of the contraband was stated to be from co-accused Shamim Ahmed Ikbal. The scanned record is available. 5. Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the main implication against the petitioner herein is that the incriminating statements of co-accused and in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, a conviction cannot be based thereupon. The court has been taken through the narration in the charge-sheet and it is also mentioned therein that as per the CDR material, the presence of the present petitioner with mobile 6001133455 was found at Badarpur on the relevant day. The learned counsel submits that the same on its own cannot be taken to implicate the present accused person. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. objecting to the grant of bail submits that the rigors of Section 37 of the Act would come into picture in the instant case and there are incriminating materials in the form of statements of co-accused and also the CDR. 7. I have given my consideration to the matter. The petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2025. Leaving aside the statements of the co-accused, the CDR analysis, the CDR material narrated in the charge-sheet has to be considered. It Page No.# 3/3 states about his presence at Badarpur on the relevant day. 8. However, there is no other material regarding telephonic conversation with other co-accused or the contents thereof at this stage. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid materials, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner would pass the test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Once that statutory bar issue is adjudicated and passed in favour of the accused, it remains to be seen as to whether the petitioner needs to be granted bail at this stage or otherwise. It is submitted that charges have been framed but prosecution evidence has not yet started. Nevertheless, the petitioner is in custody since August, 2025. 9. In the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 75,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court and subject to the following conditions:- (i) He shall not abscond; (ii) He shall be available for trial; (iii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (iv) He shall not in any manner commit any illegal activities including any activities prohibited under the NDPS Act. 10. Violation of the bail conditions would entail cancellation of the bail. 11. This bail application stands allowed and disposed of. 12. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant