Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010125722026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1660/2026 ANOWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR SON OF LATE KUTI MIA LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAKHIN MOHANPUR PTV, P.S. KACHUDARAM, DISTRICT - CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. S. CHANDA,MS A DAS,MS. J GHOSH,MS. U NANDA,MS. K L R YANTHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 15.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. S. C. Biwas for the petitioner Anowar Hussain Laskar who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 07.05.2026 in connection with Kachudaram P.S. Case No. 05/2026 under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Page No.# 2/4 Act. 2. The petitioner has filed a subsequent bail application as his order with prayer for bail was rejected in connection with B.A. No. 847/2026 vide order dated 07.05.2026. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. M. P. Goswami for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs. Central Bureau of narcotics reported in (2011) 11 SCC 347, that:- “21. Now we proceed to consider the last question, i.e, whether the appellant can be held guilty for being in possession or involved in selling the opium so as to attract the mischief of Section 8/18 of the Act. 22. In sum and substance the confession of the appellant is that he was working in the hotel for the last two months and brought the opium from the house of the hotel-owner to the hotel, where it was being sold in tablets to the truck- drivers. In the confession appellant has not stated or for that matter none of the witnesses have deposed that he was involved in selling the opium-tablets. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty for selling opium." ******************* 24. It is trite that to hold a person guilty, possession has to be conscious. Control over the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious possession so also the title. Once an article is found in possession of an accused it could be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Possession is a polymorphous term which carries different meaning in different context and circumstances and, therefore, it is difficult to lay down a completely logical and precise definition uniformly applicable to all situations with reference to all the statutes. A servant of a hotel, in our opinion, cannot be said to be in possession of contraband belonging to his master unless it is proved that it was left in his custody over which he had absolute control" 25. Applying the aforesaid principle when we consider the facts of the present case it is difficult to hold that opium was in possession of the appellant. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was in occupation of the Page No.# 3/4 room from where opium was recovered. Further the evidence clearly points out that title to the opium vested in the owners of the hotel. The confession given by the appellant was only that he was servant of the owners of the hotel from where the opium was recovered. In the face of the state of evidence it is difficult to hold that the appellant was in conscious possession of the opium. Section 18 of the Act prescribes punishment for possession and that possession, in our opinion, has to be conscious. In the facts of the present case It is difficult to hold that the appellant was in possession of the opium and, therefore, his conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.” 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor laid stress in his argument that the petitioner has not submitted under which change of circumstances the petitioner has filed a subsequent bail application. Petitioner’s prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court and on the same grounds, the petitioner is before this Court with the same prayer. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the house from where the alleged contraband was recovered. The petitioner is a helper and the prime accused is absconding. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 6 months. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the trial. 8. The allegation against the petitioner is that a search operation was conducted in Amirul Hoque Laskar’s house but the owner Amirul Hoque Laskar fled from the place of occurrence and the petitioner was apprehended. After thoroughly searching the house, 30 soap cases were recovered and heroin weighing 365.01 gms was recovered from the place of occurrence i.e., Amirul Hussain Laskar’s house. 9. I have scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records as well as the scanned copies of the Case Diary. Page No.# 4/4 10. Charge-sheet has been submitted as a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. The merits of the case are not brought to the fore as this case is at the stage of trial. The embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act operates against the petitioner. 11. Trial has not yet commenced. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail at this stage, trial may be adversely affected. 12. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the petition with prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant