Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010098462026 2026:GAU-AS:9126 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1042/2026 SRI APU RANJAN DAS S/O SUBODH CHANDRA DAS, R/O BARAMURA, WARD NO 1, PS KALAM CHOWRA, DIST SEPAHIJALA, TRIPURA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BAISHYA, P MAZUMDER,MS S DAS,MR. DIPANJAN BHUYAN,MS S BHATTACHARJYA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA O R D E R 23.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K D Choudhury, learned Deputy S.G.I. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner namely, Sri Apu Ranjan Das, who is apprehending arrest in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No.07/2022, corresponding to NDPS Case No.202/2022 under Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending Page No.# 2/6 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant anticipatory bail application, in brief, are that the Narcotics Control Bureau filed its final complaint against two accused namely Najir Ahmed and Chhadek Miah, inter- alia, alleging therein that 29,900 bottles of cough syrups containing codeine with brand name “Eskuf Cough Syrup” were recovered from a truck bearing registration No.NL-02N-6922 on 14.03.2022 at National Highway No.37 opposite to Health City Hospital, Khanapara, Guwahati. In the final complaint, the present petitioner is said to be a suspect of being involved in the offence alleged in the said case. He is suspected to be one of the kingpins of the drug trafficking network and was suspected to be main receiver of the seized cough syrups. 4. Mr. K. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph 70 of the final complaint, the NCB has stated that as and when the suspected persons are arrested, supplementary complaint petition may be filed, which has caused apprehension of the petitioner getting arrested in connection with the above mentioned case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only material in the final complaint against the present petitioner is the statement of co-accused namely, Najir Ahmed, who has disclosed in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that co-accused Jalil has informed him that the seized cough syrups pertains to Apu Ranjan Das. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the NCB in its written objection has alleged that the mobile phone bearing No.8798148885 was used by the present petitioner for communicating with the co-accused Page No.# 3/6 persons. However, the said mobile phone number is registered in the name of one Atish Kumar, who is not known to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner never ever used the aforesaid mobile number. He further submits that the contention of the NCB that said phone number also surface during the investigation by NCB in connection of a different case i.e. Crime No.02/2022 is also only to the effect that the NCB has only suspected the involvement of the petitioner in that case. However, no evidence is there on record to show that the petitioner used the said mobile number. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident alleged in the above mentioned case had occurred on 13.03.2022 as well as the final complaint has been filed on 05.09.2022 and more than 03 years 09 months have lapsed from the date of submitting of the final complaint, however, the NCB has never obtained any formal order of the Court for continuing with the investigation. He submits that even if the investigation may be continued after filing of a charge-sheet in a police report case, law requires that permission for continuing with the investigation has to be obtained from the Court. He submits that same analogy may be applicable in complaint cases also. He further submits that in the instant case, apart from the statements of the co-accused, there is no other material on record to implicate the petitioner with the offence alleged in this case and as such, he submits that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail may be granted to the present petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fact that after filing of the final complaint, more than 03 years 09 months has lapsed and the petitioner was not under any protection during this period, however, he was not arrested during that said period is in itself a good ground for this Court to exercise its discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the present Page No.# 4/6 petitioner. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings:- (i) Pramod Kumar & Ors –vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, reported in 2026 INSC 120; (ii) Gursewak Singh –vs- State of Punjab, order dated 03.09.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.11234/2025; (iii) Sukhminder Singh @ Sukhvinder Singh –vs- State of Haryana & Anr, order dated 23.08.2024, passed in Special leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.6811/2024. 8. On the other hand, Mr. RKD Coudhury, learned Dy.S.G.I has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband involved in the case is of commercial quantity and therefore, embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable in this case. He further submits that the evidence on record suggest that the present petitioner is a prime suspect of having been the kingpin of the drug trafficking which is involved in this case and considering the statement of the co-accused, which implicates him with his involvement in the alleged offence, bail may not be granted. 9. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner is necessary for proper investigation of the case. He submits that though the NCB has not sought for any leave to continue further investigation with regard to the pending NDPS Case No.202/2022, however, there is no bar in filing a fresh complaint case, if the NCB is able to collect materials against the present petitioner. 10. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana –vs- Samarth Kumar, reported in 2022 SCC Online 2087, the evidentiary value of the statements of the co-accused cannot be Page No.# 5/6 considered at the stage of consideration of an anticipatory bail application. He has also cited the following rulings in support of his submission:- (i) Sumitha Pradeep –vs- Arun Kumar C.K. and Anr, reported in (2022) 17 SCC 391; and (ii) Narcotics Control Bureau –vs- Mohit Aggarwal, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 12. On a perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that nothing was seized from the possession of the present petitioner. He is suspected of having been involved in the offence alleged in this case mainly on the basis of statement of a co-accused namely, Najir Ahmed, who has claimed that he was told by another co-accused regarding involvement of the present petitioner. 13. As apart from the statement of co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is otherwise not admissible in evidence, and as there is no other material to implicate him in the offence alleged in this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that under such circumstances, embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 may not be applicable for the grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. More so, when after filing of the final complaint by the NCB, more than 03 years 09 months ago, no leave of the Court has been taken by the NCB to continue with the investigation in the case where already final complaint has been filed. 14. Further in the fact that even after filing of the final complaint, more Page No.# 6/6 than 03 years 09 months ago, why the NCB has not been able to arrest the present petitioner is also a question which may be asked and the said fact, in light of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Gursewak Singh –vs- State of Punjab (supra), is a good ground for this Court to exercise its discretion for grant of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner. 15. Under such circumstances, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioner namely Sri Apu Ranjan Das is arrested in connection with the offence which has been alleged in NCB Crime No.07/2022 corresponding to NDPS Case No.202/2022, he shall be granted bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 16. The anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant