Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010010202026 2026:GAU-AS:2197 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./226/2026 MANIK CHAND S/O- SAHAN MIAH VILLAGE- 1 NO. SAHAPARA, PS- MANKACHAR, DIST- SOUTH MANKACHAR, ASSAM. SALMARA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, A R MONDAL,MR. M MONDAL,MR. S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 16.02.2026 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Mondal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for granting Page No.# 2/3 bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 157/2025, registered under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. An FIR was lodged on 23.11.2025 by one S.I. Rustom Ali Ahmed of Mankachar Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 22.11.2025, at about 8:41 PM, on receipt of a secret information, the police while doing Naka checking at Mankachar Tinali at about 8.50 PM, the police found the accused-applicant coming from Mirjumla side towards Mankachar town on a bike bearing Registration No. AS-24-7726; that during the body search and inspection of the bike, they recovered a pink coloured bag containing 20 bottles of Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup. The police seized the materials and arrested the accused-applicant. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered Mankachar P.S. Case No. 157/2025, under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, against the accused-applicant. 5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that though the 20 nos. of bottles were recovered, the contents of the material inside the bottles were not separately weighed. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the contraband materials seized would be of more than commercial quantity. He submits that the police authority should have measured the contents separately after keeping the bottles aside. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that, this being a procedural lapse, the instant bail application should be allowed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that from the Case Diary, it is seen that each bottle contained 100 ml of contraband substance which goes to show that 20 bottles would be definitely of more than 1 kg, i.e., the benchmark for commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in the instant bail application and the same is therefore, liable to be rejected. 7. This Court has gone through the Case Diary produced before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Page No.# 3/3 8. It is not disputed that 20 nos. of bottles have been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant and even if the bottles were taken and measured separately, the contents thereof would definitely exceed 1 Kg, which is the benchmark for commercial quantity. Therefore, the quantity being taken to be more than 1 kg and falls within the category of commercial quantity, at this stage, the accused-applicant cannot be granted bail. 9. In view of the aforesaid prima facie finding, this Court does not find any merit in the instant bail application and the same is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant