Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086242026 2026:GAU-AS:8463 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1159/2026 ANARUL ISLAM S/O LT. MONSUR ALI, R/O VILL. JURIA TINSUKIA, P.S. JURIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S HUSSAIN, MR. H RAHMAN,MR S C DAS,A JUBARIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr S C Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Rupahihat PS Case No. 362/2025, registered under Sections 123/3(5) of the BNS, 2023, along with Sections 22(c)/29/8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, corresponding to the Special NDPS Case Page No.# 2/3 No. 56/2026, pending in the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagaon. 3. The FIR dated 27.10.2022, reveals that on a reliable information received by the OC of Rupahihat Police Station to the effect that two drug peddlers, one being the petitioner were selling and dealing in huge quantity of contrabands at a particular place to the young boys, the Police personnel reached the said place, namely, Rupahi, Tinsukia, and finding the petitioner along with other accused persons, conducted search after serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and during the search, a number of cough syrup bottles and tablets were found from the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was issued to the petitioner, but there was no signature of the petitioner in the said notice, and further that the petitioner was searched, without there being any magistrate. The learned counsel also raises objections with regard to the grounds of arrest not being supplied to the petitioner in a language that he understands. He submits that the said notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, were supplied to the petitioner in English language, which he he does not understand. 5. On the other hand, Mr B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was caught red-handed with all the contrabands, as stated in the FIR and he also submits that the instant case has been returned in the form of a charge sheet filed by the IO, and the said case is pending before the learned Trial Court. He also submits that the charges are framed and that the trial will start soon. He further submits that the petitioner has been inside the jail only for period of 7 months and that after the examination of few witnesses before the Trial Court, bail may be considered to the petitioner. He also relied on Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which provides for rigours to be followed before anybody is released on bail. 6. On consideration of the submissions made, moreso, in view of the contents of the FIR as well as in the charge sheet, and also due to the fact that notice under Section 50 Page No.# 3/3 was given to the petitioner and that there is nothing mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner agitated at the time of service of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act that he does not understand, this Court does not deem it fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. 7. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant