GAHC010266772025 2026:GAU-AS:1712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./3914/2025 RINKU ALI AND ANR SON OF HABEJ ALI RESIDENT OF KALIMANDIR ROAD WARD NO 3 PO AND PS UDALGURI DISTRICT- UDALGURI, ASSAM

2: MD SAKIL ANSARI SON OF LATE ASLAM SIDDIKI VILLAGE BARARI PO GURUNELA PS BARARI DISTRICT KATIHAR (BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS G DEKA, MS M DEB Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

09.02.2026 Heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants.

Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting regular bail to the accused applicants in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No.

132/2025 under Sections 20(b) (ii)C/29 of NDPS Act.

3. The gist of the allegation as narrated in the FIR lodged by one UBC Subrata Das of New Baongaigaon G.R.P. that on 02.09.2025, at about 7.30 am during search operation at New Bongaigaon Junction, the team of G.R.P.S boarded at Coach No. B-13 of Dibrugarh-New Delhi Rajdhani Express wherein the accused applicants were found to be acting suspiciously, while they were apprehended by the police, they were trying to flee away with their luggage. It was alleged that on search of the accused applicants, suspected ganja (cannabis) weighing 12.76 kgs were recovered and seized from the possession of the accused applicant no. 1 and 14.82 kgs were recovered from the possession of the accused applicant no. 2, thereby, making the total seized contraband ganja to 27.58 kgs altogether. It was alleged that the ganjas were packed in two backpacks being carried respectively by the accused applicant nos. 1 and 2. On receipt of the FIR, Bongaigaon G.R.P.S Case No.132/2025 under the aforementioned sections was registered against the accused applicants. The accused applicants were arrested on the same date and sent to judicial custody by the learned Trial Court on 03.09.2025. Since then the accused applicants are behind the bars.

4. Ms. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants submits that though the total quantity of the ganjas allegedly seized from the two of accused applicants is of commercial quantity, however, the aforesaid ganjas were seized and recovered separately from accused applicant nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the Investigating Authority has committed an error by terming the seized ganja to be of commercial quantity rather the seized ganjas if taken separately would be of two intermediate quantities. Therefore, she submits that since the seized ganjas were of intermediate quantities and the accused applicants have already spent more than 180 days behind the bars, they should be allowed to go on bail. In this connection, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicants has referred to the case of Nadeem Ahmed Vs. State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 9446-9447 of 2025] decided on 05.08.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. She specifically referred to paragraph 23 of the said case which is extracted hereinbelow:

“23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered from both the accused persons together, 11 SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025 then positive proof to support the charge of conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures. Positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession. However, upon carefully analysing the evidence available on record, we find that, apart from the bald allegation that both the accused were seen walking together and were searched one after the other, not even a semblan