Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010065552026 2026:GAU-AS:7499 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./911/2026 RANJIT SAHA S/O LT. ANIL CHANDRA SAHA, R/O VILL RAGHUNATHPUR, P.S. BISHALGARH, DIST. SEPALIJEHA, TRIPURA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Borah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for Page No.# 2/6 granting regular bail to the petitioner namely, Ranjit Saha, in connection with Special (N) Case No. 13/2026 arising out of Bazarichera PS Case No. 112/2025 proceeded under Section 22(C)/25/29 NDPS Act pending at the Court of Special Judge, Sribhumi. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.08.2025, the complainant SI Prabhakar Choudhury of Bazaricherra Police Station lodged an FIR at Bazaricherra P.S. stating that on receipt of credible information at around 11:10 AM regarding one six-wheeler open body truck bearing Registration No. WB 25N 4370 transporting a large quantity of Codeine Phosphate based cough syrup from Kolkata towards Churaibari, necessary authorization for search and seizure was obtained as per Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Accordingly, the complainant along with his team proceeded to Churibari Watch Post and at around 12:15 PM intercepted the said vehicle. During search in presence of independent witnesses, the police recovered 392 nos. of palm oil tin containers from the hidden compartment of the vehicle, which upon inspection were found to contain 30,576 bottles of Eskuf Cough Syrup (Codeine Phosphate & Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup). The truck was being driven by Saminur Islam, S/O- Lt. Bismilla Khan, and accompanied by Saikh Alamin, S/O Abukasim Saik - both residents of District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. 5. In course of further investigation, two other persons, namely, Nur Ahmed Page No.# 3/6 Lasker and the present petitioner, Ranjit Saha, were also arrested. As far as the role of the present petitioner is concerned, as per the charge sheet, during investigation, scrutiny of e-way bills and transport documents recovered from the vehicle revealed that the GST number mentioned therein was registered in the name of “Maa Sushila Agency” owned by petitioner/Ranjit Saha of Tripura and upon questioning, he admitted that the GST number reflected in the e-way bills of accused, Saminur Islam and Saik Alamin belonged to him. It was also found that “Maa Sushila Agency” deals with agro products, including palm oil. Significantly, the seized contraband was concealed inside palm oil containers marked for delivery to “Maa Sushila Agency” and genuine e-way bills were deliberately used as camouflage to facilitate trafficking of narcotic drugs, thereby clearly establishing forward linkage and conscious facilitation by accused, Ranjit Saha. 6. The petitioner was arrested on 11/01/2026 and has been languishing in custody since then. Prior to that, the petitioner was issued notice under section 67 of the NDPS Act on two occasions, and he submitted a written reply, and subsequently, he also appeared in person, but was taken into custody. 7. Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no connection to the truck that was seized, nor to the consignments of goods found in the said truck. It is submitted that the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner is in the business of groceries and naturally has a GSTIN number, which has been misused by the actual culprits for the purpose of transporting the contraband. The petitioner does not procure supplies from any place outside the state of Tripura, and had not placed any order with the sending agency, i.e., Meera Trade Exim, and Radha Agency. 8. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that if the petitioner is involved, he would not have responded to the notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and appeared personally without securing pre-arrest bail and that if he had guilty mind, he would have fled. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is in the business of grocery and in course of such business, he also deals with palm oil and the contraband was also concealed inside the palm oil containers marked for delivery to the firm of the petitioner and the e-way bills also contained his GSTIN number which clearly points to the role of the present petitioner. 10. I have duly considered the rival submissions and have perused the scanned copy of the TCR, from which it appears that charges have already been framed against the petitioner under section 22(c)(29) of the NDPS Act against the present petitioner, along with three other co-accused persons by order dated 06/03/2026. Page No.# 5/6 11. As per the forwarding reports, charge sheet and other documents, it appears that the e-way bills revealed the consignor of the contraband to be one Meera Trade Exim and Radha Agency, both situated in the state of West Bengal. Although it appears from the record that notices under section 67 of the NDPS Act were issued to the aforesaid two entities, nothing progressed beyond that as far as the said consignors are concerned. None of the other witnesses or co- accused persons who have been arrested have implicated the present petitioner in any manner. All that is available in the form of material against the present petitioner is the e-way bills, where the GSTIN number of the petitioner's firm is reflected, which, as contended, could have been used without the petitioner's knowledge, a contention which has not been refuted by the prosecution. There is also no document seized by the police which would show that the petitioner firm had any dealings with the aforesaid consignor, and neither is there any Call Detail Record showing any connection of the petitioner with other co-accused persons or the consignors. 12. Since charge sheet has already been filed, it is for the prosecution to prove the case against the petitioner/accused, but at the stage of consideration of bail, the Court must have due regard to the material available on record so as to come to a conclusion as to whether the petitioner is entitled to bail and also in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it is necessary for the Court to form a Page No.# 6/6 view as to whether, based on the said materials, there is reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offences mentioned therein, which of course is not the same as declaring the petitioner to be innocent but only that a plausible case of innocence exists. 13. Based on the available material, I am of the view that there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offense with which he has been charged and furthermore, there is no material to show that if granted bail, the petitioner is likely to involve himself in offenses of a similar nature. 14. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail is granted and the petitioner shall be released on bail on a sum of Rs. 100,000/- with two sureties of a like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. It is further provided that the petitioner shall regularly attend the trial and shall not try to influence or intimidate any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 15. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant