Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010104862026 2026:GAU-AS:8336 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1407/2026 BIJU BISWAS S/O- RABINDRA BISWAS, R/O- CHANDRAPUR NEAR L.P SCHOOL, P.S- PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, G. DUTTA,MR. J N SUWAI,MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused-applicant, who was arrested on 07.08.2025 in Page No.# 2/6 connection with NDPS Case No. 11/2026, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. One FIR dated 05.08.2025 was lodged by the S.I. (P) Pranab Jyoti Bhattacharya of Gorchuk P.S., alleging that on receipt of certain secret information, the police team proceeded to Boragaon area and intercepted one Auto-rickshaw Van bearing Registration No. AS-01HC-8330 at the campus of one Mrinal Barman near Assam State Warehousing Corporation, Paschim Boragaon, Vigyan Path under Gorchuk P.S. jurisdiction on suspicion of illegal transportation of contraband items; that after search of the aforesaid Auto-rickshaw Van, 10 big cartoons wrapped in yellow plastic sacks, each containing 12 small cartoons and each small cartoon containing 25 bottles of 100 ml Eskuf Codeine Phosphate Syrup, totaling 3000 bottles were recovered. During the search, the police apprehended one Biswajit Saha. 4. After investigation, on the basis of the statement of the aforesaid Biswajit Saha, the police subsequently arrested one Biju Biswas (the accused-applicant) and another person, namely, Anup Pandit. After their arrest, the aforesaid Anup Pandit was released on bail. However, the accused-applicant is behind the bars since 308 days. 5. The police has filed charge-sheet in the instant case and charges were already been framed. However, no witnesses have been examined till date. 6. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel submits that the police has arrested the accused- applicant Biju Biswas only on suspicion and on the basis of the confessional statement that has been made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the co-accused, namely, Biswajit Saha and aforesaid Anup Pandit. He submits that no narcotics contraband was, in fact, recovered from possession of the accused-applicant and the accused-applicant was not present at the time when the seizure was made by Page No.# 3/6 the investigating authority. He submits that only due to the confessional statement made by the main accused Biswajit Saha, the accused-applicant has been arrested by the police. He submits that the accused-applicant is falsely implicated by the co- accused in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which is not admissible in evidence in a trial of offence under the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, he submits that only on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co- accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the accused-applicant could not have been arrested by the arresting authority. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the accused-applicant has referred to the following cases: - 1. Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. 2. Surinder Kumar Khanna, Vs. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (Criminal Appeal No. 949/2018) decided on 31.07.2018. 3. State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar, reported in (2022) O Supreme SC 1562. 8. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in view of the ratios and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the arrest of the accused-applicant in the instant case is not sustainable under the law as the arrest has been made only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused, implicating him in the offence. 9. Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., submits that the case involves recovery of huge commercial quantity of narcotics and charges have already been framed in the instant case pending evidence. Therefore, at this stage, the bail should not be granted to the accused-applicant. He further submits that since the quantity of Page No.# 4/6 narcotics contraband recovered is of commercial quantity, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in the instant case. He further submits that the Case Diary clearly reveals involvement of the accused-applicant in the instant case as it is found out that after getting information about arriving of police, the accused-applicant had fled the place of occurrence. In view of the aforesaid, Mr. Lahkar opposes the prayer of bail to the accused-applicant. 10. This Court has gone through the Case Diary that has been produced before this Court as well as heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 11. It is seen from the records that investigation has already been completed in the instant case and charges have been framed against the accused-applicant. However, in response to the submission that the arrest of the accused-applicant is not sustainable under the law as the arrest has been made only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, this Court has gone through the records minutely and could not lay hand on any material which is independent of the statement of the co-accused, pointing fingers to the involvement of the accused-applicant in the instant case. 12. In view of the judgments that have been relied on by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant, it is settled law that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, will remain inadmissible in a trial of the offence under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid position, it appears that there is no independent cogent and admissible evidence found against the accused-applicant on record at this stage, as of now, to justify his detention and to invoke the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against him. Page No.# 5/6 14. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and settled position of law and on perusal of the materials brought before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of any admissible evidence independent of the statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, in record, against the accused-applicant, the arrest of the accused-applicant in the instant case cannot be said to be legal and therefore, the same is not sustainable under the law, which entitles the accused- applicant to be released on bail. 15. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused- applicant should be allowed to go on bail. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicant be released forthwith from jail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), subject to the following conditions: - 1. That the accused-applicant shall cooperate with the trial of the case pending before the Special Judge, Kamrup (M), and shall appear before Trial Court as and when called for; 2. That the accused-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against him; 3. That the accused-applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M) without permission of the Trial Court and such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the accused-applicant shall submit his contact details including photocopies of Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, Passport as well as, mobile numbers and other contact details before the Trial Court; Page No.# 6/6 4. That the accused-applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor hamper the trial in any manner whatsoever. 16. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. 17. TCR is to be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant