Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010266772025 2026:GAU-AS:1712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3914/2025 RINKU ALI AND ANR SON OF HABEJ ALI RESIDENT OF KALIMANDIR ROAD WARD NO 3 PO AND PS UDALGURI DISTRICT- UDALGURI, ASSAM 2: MD SAKIL ANSARI SON OF LATE ASLAM SIDDIKI VILLAGE BARARI PO GURUNELA PS BARARI DISTRICT KATIHAR (BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS G DEKA, MS M DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 09.02.2026 Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting regular Page No.# 2/6 bail to the accused applicants in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 132/2025 under Sections 20(b) (ii)C/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The gist of the allegation as narrated in the FIR lodged by one UBC Subrata Das of New Baongaigaon G.R.P. that on 02.09.2025, at about 7.30 am during search operation at New Bongaigaon Junction, the team of G.R.P.S boarded at Coach No. B-13 of Dibrugarh-New Delhi Rajdhani Express wherein the accused applicants were found to be acting suspiciously, while they were apprehended by the police, they were trying to flee away with their luggage. It was alleged that on search of the accused applicants, suspected ganja (cannabis) weighing 12.76 kgs were recovered and seized from the possession of the accused applicant no. 1 and 14.82 kgs were recovered from the possession of the accused applicant no. 2, thereby, making the total seized contraband ganja to 27.58 kgs altogether. It was alleged that the ganjas were packed in two backpacks being carried respectively by the accused applicant nos. 1 and 2. On receipt of the FIR, Bongaigaon G.R.P.S Case No.132/2025 under the aforementioned sections was registered against the accused applicants. The accused applicants were arrested on the same date and sent to judicial custody by the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025. Since then the accused applicants are behind the bars. 4. Ms. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants submits that though the total quantity of the ganjas allegedly seized from the two of accused applicants is of commercial quantity, however, the aforesaid ganjas were seized and recovered separately from accused applicant nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the Investigating Authority has committed an error by terming the seized ganja to be of commercial quantity rather the seized ganjas if taken separately would be of two intermediate quantities. Therefore, she submits that Page No.# 3/6 since the seized ganjas were of intermediate quantities and the accused applicants have already spent more than 180 days behind the bars, they should be allowed to go on bail. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants has referred to the case of Nadeem Ahmed Vs. State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 9446-9447 of 2025] decided on 05.08.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She specifically referred to paragraph 23 of the said case which is extracted hereinbelow: “23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered from both the accused persons together, 11 SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025 then positive proof to support the charge of conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures. Positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession. However, upon carefully analysing the evidence available on record, we find that, apart from the bald allegation that both the accused were seen walking together and were searched one after the other, not even a semblance of evidence was led by the prosecution, which can substantiate the charge of prior conspiracy between the two accused persons.” 5. Ms. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants further referred to the case of Sagar Nana Borkar Vs. State of Maharashtra in Criminal Bail Application No. 3636 of 2022 decided on 15.09.2023 by the High Court of Bombay wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay held that since the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused and another co-accused, the same should be considered separately. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, she submits that in the instant Page No.# 4/6 case also, since the ganja was recovered from two of accused persons in separate bags, the same could not be measured together to make out a case of seizure of commercial quantity. In view of the aforesaid submissions, she prayed for allowing the accused applicants to go on bail. 6. Mr. R.J. Baurah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the quantity of ganja was recovered in two separate bags from the two persons, it is apparent that there is a criminal conspiracy between the two persons to carry the aforesaid contraband ganja. He submits that from the materials available in the TCR, it is apparent that both the accused persons are travelling together and knowing each other and aware of carrying the seized ganja by each other. Therefore, the element of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is very much present in the instant case and therefore, the judicial pronouncements relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants are not relevant into the facts of the present case. In this connection, the learned APP has referred to the case of Ridhm Rana Vs. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 385/2021, decided on 16.03.2022 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He specifically referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforesaid case in support of his submissions and submits that there cannot be any direct and clear-cut evidence of criminal conspiracy and the Court has to only infer the same from prevailing circumstances, incidences and other related materials which are outcome of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency. He submits that in the instant case, there is prima facie material available that both the persons are in criminal conspiracy in carrying the contraband ganja together and the seized ganja is of commercial quantity. Therefore, there is no mistake committed by the Investigating Officer in measuring both the seized quantities together which Page No.# 5/6 came out to be a commercial quantity. Therefore, he submits that there is no case made out by the accused applicants for granting bail in this case. 7. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the TCR of Bongaigon GRPS Case No.132/2025 which has been produced before this Court. It is seen from the materials available on record that both the accused applicants were travelling together and when they saw the police team, they tried to flee from the coach by taking the two bags together. It is also seen that the two accused applicants were travelling by booking one ticket containing PNR No. 6157716657, Train No. 20505 in birth Nos. 33 and 36. Therefore, it is discernible from the aforesaid facts that both the accused persons were travelling together though the contraband ganja was divided into two backpacks, a clear inference can be drawn in the instant case that the two accused persons know to each other and knowingly carried the contraband ganja in their respective backpacks. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that both the accused applicants are not in a criminal conspiracy as defined under Section 29 of the NDPS Act which provides for punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy regarding offences under the NDPS Act. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case of Nadeem Ahmed (supra), this Court has come to a prima facie finding that from the materials available on record, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband ganja in each other's possession. Having found such prima facie material which satisfies the provisions under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered view that the instant bail application does not have any merit to be allowed at this stage. Page No.# 6/6 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected as disposed of. 9. Case Diary so received to be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant