Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010068162026 2026:GAU-AS:8515 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./955/2026 JILLUL ISLAM SON OF JABAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILL- MULIALA PART-I, P.S. RATABARI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788720 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MR A HAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Rahma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner, namely, Jillul Islam, who was apprehending his arrest in connection with Badarpur P.S. Case No. 302/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. The principle allegation as reflected in the FIR is that on 12.12.2024, a vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-FL-7330 was apprehended during naka checking on the basis of secret information and upon search of the vehicle 50,000/- suspected yaba tablets were recovered from a secret chamber within the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle along with his three other occupants of the vehicle were arrested. During investigation, it was found that the present petitioner is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. Charge Sheet has also been submitted. An earlier pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner being AB No. 2999/2025 was dismissed by this Court’s Order dated 02.02.2026. It is Page No.# 3/5 the plea of the petitioner that he had rented out the vehicle in question to one of the arrested co-accused person and had no knowledge its use. By Order dated 19.05.2026, passed in the instant application, the petitioner, as prayed for, was granted an opportunity to bring on record the rental agreement between the petitioner and the co-accused person in respect of the seized vehicle by way of an additional affidavit. Pursuant thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner but no such rental agreement has been annexed thereto. What has been annexed is an affidavit sworn by one Amir Uddin, a co-accused of the case, stating that he has taken the said vehicle on rent from the petitioner and has to pay monthly rent for the same vehicle. The said affidavit is dated 21.05.2026 i.e., after the petitioner was granted the opportunity to submit the rental agreement as aforesaid which the petitioner failed to do. The other document annexed to the additional affidavit is a sale deed dated 10.10.2024 between the petitioner and the said Amir Uddin wherein, it is stated that the buyer i.e., Amir Uddin paid the total consideration to the seller i.e., the petitioner and on 10.102024 itself, the seller handed over physical possession alongwith all original documents to the buyer. The said agreement is not authenticated by any notary nor registered and the genuineness of the same is not established. But keeping aside the question of authenticity of the said sale Page No.# 4/5 deed and accepting it as correct, since the date of the sale deed is 10.10.2025, which was prior to the date of occurrence i.e., 12.12.2024, the statement of the petitioner that the petitioner had rented out the vehicle to the accused at the time of occurrence by executing a rental agreement appears to be self- contradictory, inasmuch as, there is no question of the buyer of the vehicle paying rent to the seller after the executive of the Sale Deed and payment of the entire consideration money as claimed. Moreover, it is interesting to note that at paragraph No. 8 of the instant application, it is stated that it was the arrested accused No. 1 Abdul Sadik who had taken the vehicle of the petitioner on rent and in this regard there exists a rental agreement between the petitioner and the said Abdul Sadik. However, the affidavit annexed to the additional affidavit has been sworn by another co-accused Amir Uddin who claims in the said affidavit that the vehicle was rented out to him i.e., Amir Uddin by the petitioner. From the above, it is evident that the explanation of the petitioner is out and out a false one. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the contraband was recovered from a secret chamber in the fuel tank of the vehicle of the petitioner and furthermore, no new ground has been made out, warranting a conclusion, at this stage, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not Page No.# 5/5 guilty of the alleged offence. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. Bail petition stands dismissed. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant