Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010059242026 2026:GAU-AS:6306 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./847/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR SON OF LATE KUTI MIA LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILL- DAKHIN MOHANPUR PT.V, P.S. KACHUDARAM, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788001 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. S. CHANDA,MR. A K DAS,MS. J GHOSH,MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 07.05.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. S.C.Biswas for the petitioner Anowar Hussain Laskar who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 20.01.2026 in connection with NDPS case No.48/ 2026 arising out of Kachudaram PS Case No. 5/2026 under Sections Page No.# 2/4 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is present for the respondent State . 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is the helper of the owner and he is not liable for the contraband recovered during investigation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in (2011) 11 SCC 347, where it has been held in paragraph Nos.21, 22, 24 and 25 as quoted hereunder: “21. Now we proceed to consider the last question, i.e, whether the appellant can be held guilty for being in possession or involved in selling the opium so as to attract the mischief of Section 8/18 of the Act. 22. In sum and substance the confession of the appellant is that he was working in the hotel for the last two months and brought the opium from the house of the hotel-owner to the hotel, where it was being sold in tablets to the truck-drivers. In the confession appellant has not stated or for that matter none of the witnesses have deposed that he was involved in selling the opium-tablets. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty for selling opium.” * * * * * * * * * * * * * * “ 24. It is trite that to hold a person guilty, possession has to be conscious.Control over the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious possession so also the title. Once an article is found in possession of an accused it could be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Possession is a polymorphous term which carries different meaning in different context and circumstances and, therefore, it is difficult to lay down a completely logical and precise definition uniformly applicable to all situations with reference to all the statutes. A servant of a hotel, in our opinion, cannot be said to be in possession of contraband belonging to his master unless it is proved that it was left in his custody over which he had absolute control.” “25. Applying the aforesaid principle when we consider the facts of the present case it is Page No.# 3/4 difficult to hold that opium was in possession of the appellant. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was in occupation of the room from where opium was recovered. Further the evidence clearly points out that title to the opium vested in the owners of the hotel. The confession given by the appellant was only that he was servant of the owners of the hotel from where the opium was recovered. In the face of the state of evidence it is difficult to hold that the appellant was in conscious possession of the opium. Section 18 of the Act prescribes punishment for possession and that possession, in our opinion, has to be conscious. In the facts of the present case it is difficult to hold that the appellant was in possession of the opium and, therefore, his conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.” 4. Per contra, Mr. D.P.Goswami, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has submitted that the ratio of the decision of Ram Singh (Supra) is not applicable to this case. This case is at the initial stage. Charges are yet to be framed. There are direct allegations against the petitioner and without the testimony of witnesses, it could not be ascertained if the petitioner was unaware of the contraband and he was holding the same for his master. The petitioner was working for Amirul Hoque Laskar and he was apprehended in the house where the contraband was found. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumscription. 6. I have also scrutinized the trial court records. At this juncture, the merit of the case is not brought to the fore as this case is pending for trial. The bar under section 37 NDPS Act fetters the prayer for bail. Considering all aspects, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Page No.# 4/4 Comparing Assistant