Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010122002026 2026:GAU-AS:9990 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1312/2026 SAHID AHMED BARBHUIYA AND ANR S/O-AJIJUL HAQUE BARBHUIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DURGANAGAR PT-V P.O. P.S.-UDHARBOND DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM 2: AYUB HASSAN LASKAR S/O-ABDUL HOQUE LASKAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOBINDAPUR PT II P.O.-GOVINDAPUR EAST DIST.-CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N Z CHOUDHURY, MR N A MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. N.A. Mazarbhuiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicants. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/8 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused-applicants in connection with Udharbond P.S. Case No. 45/2026, registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gists of the prosecution’s case are that on 02.06.2026, at about 1:00 AM, the complainant S.I. Kalidhar Thaosen of Udharbond PS, lodged an FIR at the police station with a reference Udharbond PS GD No.-09 dated 01.06.2026 to the effect that on 01.06.2026, at about 12.15 PM, one telephonic information has been received by the O/C Udharbond PS, namely, Insp. SI Im Sing Timung from a reliable source regarding storage/concealment of suspected NDPS substance by one Sahid Ahmed Barbhuiya and his father Ajijul Hoque Barbhuiya, in their godown located at their house; that accordingly, the information has been entered as Udharbond PS GDE No. 09 dated 01.06.2026; that the O/C Udharbond PS as an empowered officer under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Assam Govt. Notification No. EX/145/85/30 dated 25/04/1995 had authorized SI Kalidhar Thaosen to conduct search and seizure at the godown of the aforesaid two persons; that the police party, headed by SI Kalidhar Thaosen, with certain other police personnel, reached at Durganagar Pt-V; that on reaching the spot, they found one person identified as Ajijul Hoque Barbhuiya; that accordingly, search was conducted and after a thorough search, they found nine (9) cartoons and certain loose bottles of suspected NDPS substance (Codeine Cough Syrup) totaling to 1420 bottles. The descriptions of the seizure are as follows: - 1. Eight (8) cartoons of Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup of 100 ml bottle, Batch No. TBHZ0039, MFG Date 04/2026, Expiry Date-03/2028, MRP Rs. 303.00/-, Brand Name- VINCOF PLUS, each cartoon contain 150 bottles, total 1200 bottles; 2. Codeine Phosphate Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup, Batch No. HLA Page No.# 3/8 37, MFG Date 12/2025, Expiry Date 11/2027, MRP Rs. 290/-, Brand Name- PBREX of one cartoon containing 120 bottles, one packet containing 100 bottles, total 220 bottles; 3. One Realme mobile handset vide IMEI No. 869452079488675; 4. One IPHONE Sierra blue color. The above named person, namely, Ajijul Hoque Barbhuiya was apprehended and taken under custody for further investigation. During interrogation, the apprehended accused person stated that his son Sahid Ahmed Barbhuiya has brought the suspected NDPS items and kept those in the godown. It was stated that they run the pharmacy together. Two persons were named in the FIR, namely, Ajijul Hoque Barbhuiya and Sahid Ahmed Barbhuiya. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered the Udharbond P.S. Case No. 45/2026, under the aforementioned sections. 5. It is seen that, vide an order dated 23.06.2026, the aforesaid Ajijul Hoque Barbhuiya has been released on bail by the Special Judge (NDPS), Silchar, Cachar. 6. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Senior Counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants belonged to a respectable family and has no criminal background. He submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 is a businessman and deals in medicine in wholesale business and the accused-applicant no. 2 is a person working in his business establishment. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 is having a valid license to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) drugs for sale or distribute by wholesale under the name and style of M/s Sahid Medicine Center, vide Drug License No. D/OL/CHR/6210 & D/OL/CHR/6211, issued on 21.09.2022 under the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. He further submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 is having GST Registration Certificate, vide Page No.# 4/8 Registration Number 18COTPB8329A1ZV. He submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 maintaining all records about purchasing of medicines from different companies and in the instant case also, the accused-applicant no. 1 purchased the aforementioned seized 1200 bottles of VINCOF PLUS and 220 bottles of PBREX SYP from one M/s Simran Pharmacy having Drugs License No. 13/WS-TBL/2023/7 X(G)/TBL/2023/14/WS-TBL/2023 and GSTIN-14BRYPA7805H2 ZK through a proper GST Invoice, vide Invoice No. 09485 dated 14.05.2026. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 is having been issued the license by the authority as authorized under the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, has brought those seized items for the purpose of selling and he has not involved in any illegal activity with the use of those purchased items. He submits that in the instant case, since the seized items are prescribed medicines under the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which can be legally procured by a license holder and store the same for the purpose of selling or wholesaling, the instant case could not have been registered by the police authorities under the NDPS Act. He submits that though Codeine is a substance which features in the NDPS Act, but regulated purchase of the seized items are not illegal under the provisions of Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945. He submits that the accused-applicant no. 1 is running the business for quite a while and he has been purchasing medicines containing Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate and has been selling the same for medicinal purpose. He submits that in view of the aforesaid, since the accused-applicant no. 1 is not involved in any illegal activities of selling of any banned narcotic substances, the invocation of the provisions of the NDPS Act in the instant case by the police authorities is illegal and therefore, the accused-applicants should be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail in the instant case. 7. Case Diary in the instant case has been received and the same is perused by this court. Page No.# 5/8 8. Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that large quantity of contraband materials have been seized from the godown owned by the accused-applicant no. 1 and the authenticity of the licenses, which have been annexed in the instant anticipatory bail application are required to be verified. Therefore, he opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the accused-applicants in the instant case. 9. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also perused the Case Diary as well as the provisions of law. 10. It is seen from the license (Annexure-3) in Form 21-B that the same is issued on 21.09.2022 under the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945, whereby, a license has been given to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale or distribute wholesale drugs specified on Schedules C and C(1) (excluding those specified in Schedule X). It is also seen that the license is issued with the condition that the license unless sooner suspended or cancelled, shall remain valid perpetually. It is also mentioned that the compliance with the conditions of license and the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 shall be assessed not less than once in three years or as needed as per risk based approach. 11. Another license under the aforesaid Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 has been issued to the accused-applicant, whereby the accused-applicant was licensed to sell, stock or exhibit (or offer) for sale or distribute wholesale drugs other than those specified in (Schedules C, C(1) and X). This license has also been issued and shall remain valid perpetually if not cancelled earlier. 12. From the above two licenses, it is seen that those licenses have been issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the licenses have been issued to sell, stock or distribute wholesale various substances and items either mentioned Page No.# 6/8 or excluded in the Schedules mentioned there. 13. It is seen that under the provisions of the 59 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, the State Government shall appoint Licensing Authorities for the purpose of issuing licenses for such areas as may be specified. 14. It is also seen that Section 61 provides for Forms of licenses to sell drugs. The Forms are Form 20, Form 20A or Form 20B, as the case may be, as well as Form 21, Form 21A, Form 21B and Form 20F or Form 20G, as the case may be. Therefore, it is seen that licenses can be issued in various forms for specific drugs as provided in different schedules. 15. It is also seen that Schedule-H and Schedule H1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 which provide for prescription drugs contains Codeine as a prescription drug. So, the seized items which contains Codeine as one of the substance, is mentioned as a prescription drugs, meaning thereby, the same can be used under the prescription of a medical practitioner for medicinal purposes. 16. Since the licenses have been granted by the authorities concerned, under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for selling, stocking or offering and distributing on wholesale, the aforesaid, cough syrup contains Codeine and the seized bottles of cough syrups have been duly legally purchased by the accused-applicant no. 1 being a license holder for selling those cough syrups, it cannot be said that the accused- applicant has illegally procured or stocked for the purpose of selling those cough syrups. 17. It is also seen from the Invoice annexed to the instant application (Annexure- 5) that the seized number of bottles, totaling to 1200 bottles of VINCOF PLUS and 220 PBREX SYRP have been purchased by the accused-applicant in the name of M/s Sahid Medicine Centre from M/s Simran Pharmacy located in Lilong, Thoubal, Manipur. It is also seen that M/s Simran Pharmacy has also having a license, i.e., Page No.# 7/8 License No. 13/MS-TBL/2023 7-X(G)/TBL/2023 14/WS-TBL/2023. The aforesaid Invoice dated 21.05.2026 has been duly signed by the proprietor of M/s Simran Pharmacy, namely, Gulam Sayed Azad. 18. Taking into account the aforesaid materials and having prima facie found that the seized substances are prescribed substances under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, which have been procured by the accused-applicant having active licenses issued to him under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, by the authority as described in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused-applicants can be given the privilege of pre-arrest bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of accused-applicants by the police authorities in connection with Udharbond P.S. Case No. 45/2026, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days of passing of the instant order; (2) That the accused-applicants shall fully cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for; (3) That the accused-applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Authority; 19. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of as allowed. Page No.# 8/8 JUDGE Comparing Assistant