Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010062252026 2026:GAU-AS:7220 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./884/2026 SULTAN UDDIN CHOUDHURY SON OF ASAR UDDIN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILL- CHANDIPUR PART-I, P.O. JANAKI BAZAR, P.S. ALGAPUR, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN-788801 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. B BHAGAWATI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This instant bail application has been filed under section 483 of the Page No.# 2/4 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Sultan Uddin Choudhury, has prayed for bail in connection with Special (N) Case No. 76/2025 (arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 153/2025) under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The petitioner has been detained in custody since 24.08.2025. 4. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a subsequent bail petition as the earlier bail petition was rejected on 29.12.2025 in BA/3488/2025 after perusal of case diary and at that time, the case was at the stage of investigation. It is submitted that though the petitioner at that time had made a contention about the incriminating materials being the statement of co-accused person and reference was also made to the case of Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, it was held that as the case was at the stage of investigation and therefore, the bail was rejected. It is submitted that in the meantime, the investigation has resulted in a charge sheet vide C.S. No. 181/2025 dated 29-12-2025 against four accused persons including the present petitioner under section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act and poised for commencement of trail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed a copy of order dated 08-04-2026 passed by this Court in BA 597/2026 and submitted that the said order had granted bail to co-accused Taj Uddin after filing of charge sheet and on the main ground that apart from the statement of co-accused, there are not much other materials, applying the principle of Toofan Singh (supra). The relevant para 7 and 8 of the said order may be reproduced below – 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, Page No.# 3/4 the CDR material narrated in the charge-sheet has to be considered. It 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. 5. Scanned TCR has been received. 6. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that, there is undoubtedly the incriminating statement of co-accused and apart from that, there are the CDR materials indicating telephonic calls between the co-accused including the present petitioner. The following extract of the charge-sheet may be reproduced herein below – 6. Analysis of the CDR/SDR/CAF were revealed that the accused Taj Uddin (6001133455), Sultan Uddin Choudhory (8638659330), Samsul Islam Talukdar (7002431614), were present at badarpur area at time and date of occurrence and they handed yaba tablet to Shamim Md. Ikbal (8099544759). 7. In the order granted bail to co-accused Taj Uddin, this aspect has been gone into and it has been held that apart from the said narration in the charge sheet on the basis of CDR analysis that the accused persons were present at Badarpur area – no other materials were there regarding incriminating contents of any such telephonic conversations. On such basis, the co-accused was granted bail. Page No.# 4/4 8. Upon considering the matter, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present petitioner is also similarly placed as the co-accused granted bail as mentioned above. 9. Accordingly, this subsequent bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is hereby granted bail in connection with Special (N) Case No. 76/2025 (arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 153/2025) under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.75,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned court (learned Special Judge, Sribhumi). 10. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) That the petitioner shall not abscond; (b) That the petitioner shall be available during trial; (c) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (d) That the petitioner shall not in any manner commit any illegal activities including any activities prohibited under the NDPS Act. 11. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 12. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant