Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010069832026 2026:GAU-AS:9956 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/748/2026 MD AINUDDIN ALIAS AYU UDDIN LASKAR AND ANR S/O MD. MAJIR AHMED R/O. 62 DUNGRIPAR PART-I, SONAI DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM-788119 2: SRI EMMANUEL LALTHUISUOK S/O. THANAEL R/O. HMARKHAWLIEN DIGOR FULERTOL PT-II DIST- CACHAR ASSAM-78810 VERSUS NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU GUWAHATI, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, J SARMAH,M N RONGMEI,MRS. R RONGMEI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, NCB. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioners, namely, Md. Ain Uddin @ Ayu Uddin Laskar and Sri Emmanuel Lalthuisuok are seeking Anticipatory Bail apprehending arrest in connection with an FIR, which is registered as NCB Case No. 14/2025 registered under Sections 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The brief facts of this case is that on 01.12.2025 NCB Guwahati Heroin from Zonal Unit seized 6.149 Kg from the possession of the arrested accused persons namely Jacob Hmar and Melodi Hmar of Lakhipur Fulertol in the Cachar District. In this connection NCB Guwahati Cr. No. 14/2025 has been registered under Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 which is punishable under Section 21 (C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were issued to the petitioners, which create an apprehension in the mind of the petitioners that they may be arrested upon their appearance before the NCB authority. Hence, the instant application for pre-arrest bail. 5. Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in no way involved with the alleged offence and nothing was recovered from their possession so as to made them liable to be proceeded against the instant case and that he Notices under Section 67 of NDPS Act have Page No.# 3/7 been issued to the petitioners only on the basis of the statements of the arrested persons, which cannot be taken into account for fastening liability upon the petitioners. 6. Mr. R.K. Debchoudhury, learned Senior counsel representing the NCB with reference to the objections/affidavit filed on behalf of the NCB has submitted that the involvement of the petitioners have surfaced during the course of investigation, which have revealed credible material, including voluntary statements of co-accused persons and technical evidences and accordingly Notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act have been issued to the petitioners. It is further submitted that their custodial interrogation is necessary for unearthing their involvement. 7. It is stated in the aforesaid objection/affidavit filed by the NCB that both the arrested accused persons in their voluntarily statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act that the seized consignment of heroin was supplied to buyers including one “Md. Uddin” and that the said co-accused persons have provided the mobile number of the said “Md. Uddin” , which upon verification has been found to be registered in the name of the present petitioner No.1, Md. Ain Uddin @ Ayu Uddin Laskar and thereby establishing a direct link between the petitioner and the contraband trafficking chain. It is further stated that the call detail records further corroborate the uses of the said number during the relevant period, although the said records have not been produced. It is also stated that one of the mobile numbers used by the principal accused in the trafficking chain has been found registered in the name of the petitioner No.2 as per CAF records, which creates a strong suspicion regarding the involvement of the said petitioner requiring custodial interrogation. Page No.# 4/7 8. Admittedly, there is no recorded conversation between the petitioners and the arrested co-accused persons. What is stated in the affidavit of NCB is that the co-accused persons have provided a mobile number of one ‘’Md. Uddin’’ which has been found to be registered in the name of the present petitioner No.1 and therefore, the said “Md. Uddin” is none other than the petitioner No.1, who has been identified as the intended purchaser of the contraband. Therefore, whatever is available against the present petitioner No.1 are the statements of the arrested co-accused persons. No call detail record has been furnished to establish any calls being made to the said number from the numbers of the arrested co-accused persons. All that is stated is that the call detail records indicate active use of the said number during the relevant period corresponding with the timeline of the offence without indicating as to the identity of the person with whom any call had taken place from the said mobile number. It is no where stated that the said number was used to communicate with the arrested co-accused persons during the relevant period. 9. As far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, nothing more has been stated except that one of the mobile numbers used by the principal accused in the trafficking chain has been found registered in the name of the petitioner No.2 as per CAF records, without providing any further details of such usage. That in the considered view of the Court is not sufficient to link the petitioners with the arrested co-accused persons or to the alleged offence. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2025) INSC 725 has held that:- “39.The High Court has its own understanding of Section 30 of the Evidence Page No.# 5/7 Act. It says that what is admissible under Section 30 can also be looked into at the stage of considering the plea of anticipatory bail or even regular bail. However, we are not impressed with the view expressed by the High Court. We are of the considered opinion that such a confession if any cannot be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail for the following reasons: - i)…………………………… ii) …………………………… iii) Assuming for a moment that such a confession can be looked into at the stage of anticipatory bail or even regular bail, as per Kashmira Singh (supra), such a confession can only be pressed into consideration by the court as a rule of prudence, to lend assurance to the other evidence against such co-accused. Thus, there must exist other evidence on record, before the court looks into such confession”. 11. In the present case, no such “other evidence” implicating the present petitioners can be said to be available in view of what has been discussed hereinbefore. 12. It has been further held in the aforesaid case as below:- “46.Both Indresh Kumar (supra) and Salim Khan (supra) have held that in deciding the question of grant of bail, it is the statements of witness under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. that has to be looked into. Nowhere has this Court held that even the police statements of the accused person under Section 161 Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7532-34 of 2025 Page 23 of 35 of the Cr.P.C. must also be looked into at the stage of grant of anticipatory or regular bail. Page No.# 6/7 53. From the above exposition of law, the following emerges: - (vii) Where the police statement of an accused is in the form of an admission, such in culpatory statement even if it implicates another co-accused cannot be taken into consideration against such co- accused in terms of Section(s) 17 read with 21 of the Evidence Act, as doing so would militate against the general principle, that an admission may be given as evidence against the maker alone. The exceptions to the aforesaid general principle carved out under the Evidence Act, do not permit the usage of such admission against a co-accused in any scenario whatsoever”. 13. In view of the clear position of law laid down as above, the statements of the arrested co-accused persons implicating the present petitioners as the intended recipients of the contraband cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of denying the privilege of pre-arrest bail, in the absence of any other materials. 14. Thus situated, based on the available materials and for the limited purpose of consideration of the instant bail application, this Court is constrained to come to the view that the petitioners may not be guilty of the alleged offence and that if granted pre-arrest bail would not indulge in offences of a similar nature. 15. And accordingly, the prayer for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners in the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid case shall be released on bail of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only each with two suitable sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of Arresting authority. 16. The bail is granted on the condition that the petitioners shall appear Page No.# 7/7 before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned and co-operate with the investigation. 17. The Anticipatory Bail petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant