Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010100642026 2026:GAU-AS:8349 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1387/2026 SHAMIM AHMED IKBAL ALIAS SHAMIM MD IKBAL SON OFLATE SIRAJ UDDIN, RESIDENTOF GORKAPON, PS BADARPUR,DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM,PIN-788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. S. CHANDA,MS. J GHOSH,MS. R DEVI,MS. U NANDA,MS. K L R YANTHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP for the State. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused. It has been Page No.# 2/3 stated that the matter has been fixed on 18.06.2026 for framing of charges. On the earlier occasion, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court for regular bail since the charge-sheet had already been filed. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner approached the learned trial Court seeking regular bail. Upon rejection of the said bail application by the learned trial Court, the present bail petition has been filed. This Court finds that a commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 597 of 2026 to contend that one of the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and therefore, on the ground of parity the case of the present petitioner may also be considered for grant of bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that an issue may arise as to whether the charge-sheet had been filed within the prescribed period. From the records, it appears that the petitioner was arrested on 24.08.2025 and that the charge-sheet was submitted on 15.12.2025. This Court finds that the order dated 08.04.2026 records that the alleged recovery was effected from the present petitioner. Therefore, since no recovery had been made from the petitioner in Bail Application No. 597 of 2026, this Court had come to the conclusion that there were materials indicating that the case of the petitioner therein satisfied the conditions prescribed under Section Page No.# 3/3 37 of the NDPS Act. In the present case, this Court is in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned APP that in view of the recovery of commercial quantity was made from the present petitioner, the case does not satisfy the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the present bail petition stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant