Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010023182026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./371/2026 TAPOS SARKARALIAS TAPASH SARKAR ALIAS BAPAN SARKAR S/O LATE BABUL SARKAR R/O BIDYAPARA, WARD NO. 10, P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S M MOLLAH, MRS. S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 25 .03. 2026 Heard Mr. S.M. Mollah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent. 2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Tapos Sarkar @ Tapash Sarkar @ Bapan Sarkar under Section 483 of Bharatiya Page No.# 2/3 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with Special Case No. 520/2024 (Gauripur P. S. Case No. 118/2024) under Sections 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri. 3. Case diary is received and perused. 4. As per the allegation, a bus bearing registration No. ASO1C 9286 was proceeding from Boxirhat towards Dhubri was stopped by election officials on 21.04.2024 during the time of Lok Sabha election and two cloth bags containing psychotropic substance were recovered and one of the passengers was detained and one of the passengers namely Abdul Rahim Sarkar identified the petitioner as carrier of the said two bags. Further, commercial quantity of psychotropic substances was recovered from the said bags. The petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Dhubri on 22.04.2024 and since then he has been in custody. 5. In the meantime on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and charges were framed and the trial has also procedded wherein 4 out of the 7 numbers of charge sheet named witnesses have been examined. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the very person i.e. Abdul Rahim Sarkar who allegedly identified the petitioner has not been made witness in the case as also admitted by the I.O. during cross- examination. 7. Further, it is also pointed out that the notices under Sections 50 and 50(a) Cr.P.C. do not contain any grounds of arrest because of which the arrest of the petitioner is rendered illegal in view of the various decisions of the Apex Court in this regard including the decisions of Vihan Kumar – Vs. the State of Page No.# 3/3 Haryana and Another: (2005) SCC Online SC 269 and Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India : 2023 INSC 866. 8. Upon perusal of the aforesaid notices, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to what has been discussed above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Dhubri in connection with the aforementioned case. 10. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the trial court regularly; (ii) the petitioner shall not try to influence the remaining witnesses. 11. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant