GAHC010235342025 2025:GAU-AS:16519

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./3496/2025

HOBIBUR RAHMAN ALIAS HABIBUR RAHMAN

SON OF LATE JAMIR UDDIN, R/O LAILAPUR FOREST VILLAGE, P.O. AND

P.S. DHOLAI, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788114

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MS S Z HAYAT

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

02.12.2025

Heard Ms. S. Z. Hayat, learned counsel appearing for the accused

applicant and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for bail of the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 55/2025 corresponding to Dholai P.S. Case No. 78/2025 presently pending

before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The allegation against the accused applicant in the FIR lodged on 26.05.2025 by one S. Gogoi before the Officer-in-Charge, Dholai Police

station is that during search of the house of the accused applicant 101.43 gms of suspected heroin was recovered. Thereafter, an investigation was initiated and ultimately on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused applicant as well as his wife under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant was arrested on 18.09.2025 and for the last 74 days, he has been languishing in the judicial custody. She submits that when the alleged heroin was recovered, the accused applicant was not present in the house and in fact, the house from where the heroin was seized is not belonged the accused applicant and his wife and the same is located in front of the house where the accused applicant and his wife stay. She further submits that the accused applicant is a driver by profession and therefore, though notice was received by him, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court on 3 (three) occasions but he was being represented by his engaged counsel.

th On the 4 day, when he could not appear, though his counsel was present before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court has issued Non- Bailable Warrant of Arrest (for short, ‘NBWA’) and accordingly, on the basis of the NBWA, the accused applicant was arrested on 18.09.2025.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant further submits that by an order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2872/2025, the wife of the accused applicant has already been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this Court.

5. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that since the quantity seized is of an intermediate quantity and the charge sheet has already been filed, the accused applicant should be released on bail taking into account the period of detention already undergone. She further submits that since the seizure of the heroin is of an intermediate quantity, the rigors of Section

37 will not be applicable in the instant case.

6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. PP opposed the grant of bail to the accused applicant on the ground that charge sheet has already been submitted against the accused applicant as well as his wife and there is sufficient materials in the records against the accused applicant.

7. This Court has considered the materials brought on record as well as the TCR placed before this Court.

8. In the instant case, it is seen from the records that charges against the accused applicant are yet to be framed. The trial is yet to be commenced and the accused applicant is already in judicial custody for more than 74 days and the accused applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial, though, he was arrested on the strength of NBWA issued by the learned Trial Court.

9. Taking into account the entire facts involved in the instant case, this Court is of the op