Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010020512026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./330/2026 SAMIM AHMED S/O - KABIR AHMED R/O- WEST TONGIBARI, POLICE STATION - RATABARI, DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI. ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.03.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 63/2025 arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 99/2025 Page No.# 2/3 registered under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The FIR in the instant case lodged by the police personnel reveals that on an information that large consignment of narcotic drugs were being transported from Mizoram to Patharkandi by persons driving a Maruti WagonR vehicle, the police intercepted the same and the drivers of the said vehicle was apprehended at 02:30 am and that soon after another vehicle arrived near the place of occurrence and from the same petitioner and two others were apprehended on the ground that petitioner and the others had come to purchase the said contrabands from the inmates found in the other vehicle. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the co-accused, who was found in the other vehicle had come to the place of occurrence only in search of his brother, who was the inmate of the other vehicle which was intercepted before hand and that petitioner and others have no connection with the drugs being found in the first vehicle. Mr R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the case has resulted in the charge sheet, charge sheeted under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act and that the case is yet to be taken up for charge framing and as such the Government counsels objects to the grant of bail and it has been stated in the charge sheet that petitioner has admitted that they arrived at the place of occurrence for the purpose of purchasing the seized drugs and that the CDR analysis of mobile phone of the petitioner and the co- accused shows that they were in constant touch with the accused persons found in the first vehicle. On consideration being made, this Court finds that no contrabands were seized from the vehicle where the petitioner was found, this Court finds it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one Page No.# 3/3 local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Sribhumi under the following conditions: i) The petitioner will appear before the Trial Court as and when call for. ii) The petitioner will not influence the witnesses connected with the case. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant