Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010030162026 2026:GAU-AS:8484 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./482/2026 BISWAJIT SINGH S/O LT JAYANTA KR SINGH, R/O AMARJAN, PS BOKAJAN, DIST KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 15.06.2026. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail Page No.# 2/7 to the accused petitioner, namely, Biswajit Singh, who is in jail hajot since 21.09.2025, in connection with NDPS Case No.113/2025 (corresponding with the Khatkhati P.S. Case No. 99/2025), under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused petitioner is innocent and he is not a drug paddler neither he deals with any drugs. He is a pharmacist and also obtained the drug licence from the concerned authority of Drugs and Cosmetics Licensing Authority. Initially his license was issued for the year 2012—2017 but thereafter in two occasions it was renewed i.e. from 2017—2022 and from 2022—2027 and on the basis of his renewed license, he is doing his business. The accused petitioner was caught red handed while he was coming with 50 bottles of cough syrup on his scooty and without giving any opportunity of producing the purchase receipts and all, he was apprehended by the police. At present, the accused petitioner is in the custody for 268 days as on today. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submitted that the learned Trial Court below did not consider the fact that the license was issued by the competent authority and the license of the petitioner was renewed upto 2027 but while dealing with his bail application, the learned Trial Court below basically stressed on the point that the license was valid from 29.10.2012 till 28.10.2017 and his license was expired before his arrest and it was also considered that the documents which were produced were only treasury challan, on the basis of which it is claimed that the license was renewed. But Page No.# 3/7 from the renewal license, it is seen that the authority has already put their seal and signature in the renewal license and it is not merely a treasury challan but the license was renewed accordingly. But that aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Court below while dealing with the application for bail. He further submitted that at the time of his arrest, the accused petitioner could not produce the money receipt as during that period of time, when he purchased the cough syrup, the money receipt was not generated and subsequently when his family members though tried to get the money receipt but it was not issued by the person from whom the cough syrup bottles were purchased with the apprehension that he may also be entangled with the present case. Mr. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the accused petitioner could not produce his money receipt, in that extent also it may be a case under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and it cannot be a case under the NDPS Act to attract Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The accused petitioner is a permanent resident of the addressed locality and considering all these aspects of the case, the petitioner may be released on bail. However, he is ready and willing to contest the case by appearing before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date, to be fixed by the Court. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised vehement objection and submitted that as per the Rule 52A (9) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, a Licensed Dealer or a Licensed Chemist may possess essential narcotics drugs in such quantity, and in such manner, as may be prescribed in the license issued under the Rules. But here in the instant case, commercial quantity of 50 bottles of cough syrup were recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner. He further submitted that being a Page No.# 4/7 Pharmacist or Chemist, the petitioner may keep the cough syrup bottles for sale or for his personal consumption but there has to be limit for keeping those bottles, as per the license issued to him. The learned Addl. P.P., Assam further submitted that as Rule 52A (3) of the Rules, there has to be some specified quantity of drugs which is to be kept by the Registered Medical Practitioner and beyond that limit, one cannot keep such a huge quantity of medicines/manufactured drugs in his medical store. Mr. Baruah further submitted that during the investigation also, it is seen that 50 bottles of cough syrup containing Codeine Phosphate was recovered from the dickey of the scooty, which was riding by the accused petitioner which is a highly addictive drugs and affects the central nervous system. Apart from that, it is submitted by Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam that the accused petitioner purchased all those drugs from Dimapur, Nagaland though the license was issued to him by the Drugs and Cosmetics licensing authority. In that context, it is submitted by Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the license issued to him, there is no specific mention about the quantity to be sold by the present petitioner. That apart, Rule 52A (3) speaks only about the Medical Practitioner and as per Rule 2(ib), the present accused petitioner cannot come under the term of Medical Practitioner. Further, Mr. Nawaz submitted that it is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner purchased those bottles of cough syrup from Dimapur in the State of Nagaland and there cannot be any bar for purchasing the drugs from outside Assam though he authorized only to sale any drugs in Assam, as per the license issued to him. He further submitted that the petitioner is not at all a drug paddler but without giving any opportunity of producing all these documents, he got arrested in connection with this case and in custody for last 268 days. Page No.# 5/7 Accordingly, Mr. Nawaz submitted that the accused petitioner may be released on bail at this stage. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR which has already been received and the annexure filed along with the bail petition. It is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner got arrested in connection with the present case and 50 bottles of Codeine Phosphate cough syrup were recovered from his possession. That fact is also not denied by the petitioner. However, it is the only issue of the petitioner is that he is not a drug paddler nor he brought those cough syrup bottles for selling it as drug and he brought those cough syrup bottles to keep/store in his pharmacy. From the record, it also reveals that the accused petitioner already got the drug license which was issued by the Drugs and Cosmetics licensing authority. The learned Trial Court below had rejected the bail prayer of the petitioner basically considering the fact that the drug license was not renewed and it was expired in the year 2017, which was issued in favour of the accused petitioner. That apart, it was held that the petitioner could not produce any receipt for purchase of those cough syrups, which he claims to be purchased from Dimapur, State of Nagaland. But from the annexed documents as well as the scanned copy of the TCR, it is seen that the drug licenses which were issued to the present petitioner is renewed in two occasions. Initially the license was issued for the year 2012—2017 and then it get renewed for 2017—2022 and finally from 2022—2027. Thus renewal of the license was seems to be done much prior to the alleged offence. Page No.# 6/7 As pointed out by Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam, as per Rule 52A (9) of the Rule, a licensed chemist may possess essential narcotics drugs in such a quantity, as prescribed in the license issued under the Rules. But here in the instant case, on perusal of the license issued to the petitioner, it is seen that there is no such mention about the quantity of the drugs to be possessed or to be kept by the petitioner in his pharmacy. By the two licenses issued in favour of the petitioner, by one license he was permitted to stock or sale/distribute drugs by retail other than those specified in Schedule C, Schedule C1 and Schedule X and by the other license, he was restricted by the license to sale, stock or exhibit retail drugs specified in Schedule C and Schedule C1 to the vendors. But the cough syrup falls under Schedule H Drugs and thus it is seen that the petitioner was not prohibited or restricted to sale the Codeine Phosphate cough syrup which was found in the conscious possession of the present petitioner during search and seizure. However, it is a fact that the petitioner could not produce the receipt at the time of his arrest which was stated to be purchased from Dimapur in Nagaland and though there is no such restriction or bar to purchase medicine from outside the State of Assam, though as per the license, the petitioner is only authorized to deal with drags in the State of Assam. From the discussions made above, it is seen that at the time of his arrest or at the relevant time of alleged offence, the petitioner had possessed the valid drug license that it is not verified at that stage by the concerned authority. However, prima facie it reveals that the petitioner had the drug license. Admittedly it is a case of commercial quantity wherein the allegation of 50 bottles of cough syrup was alleged to have been recovered from the conscious Page No.# 7/7 possession of the petitioner but, without going other detail of the merit of the case and considering the discussions made above and the length of detention already undergone by the accused petitioner vis-a-vis the stage of the case, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, one surety has to be a Government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong, the accused petitioner, named above shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong, without prior permission, and (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong. In terms of above, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant