Rajibur Islam Vs The State of Ap

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040009622025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : BA/75/2025

¶5

Rajibur Islam Son of Shiful Islam, resident of Village No.II Barachala, PO and PS Laluk, Lakhimpur District, Assam. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶6

Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi, Nannu Yubi,Biri Esther,Tadar Bai,Wanglat Khomrang,Maklek Lego,Tame Rimi,Uttam Deka

¶7

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶8

BEFORE

¶9

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 03-07-2025

¶12

Heard Mr. C Modi, learned counsel for the appellant and as well as Mr. T. Ete, learned Public Prosecutor. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Naharlagun PS Case No. 62/2025 under Section 21(B)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

The fact of the present case is that on a reliable information that a drug peddler is in possession of suspected contraband and are selling them to the addicted persons, the police personnel, after entering the contents in the general diary, proceeded to the concerned place after informing the Senior Officer and the team apprehended two drug peddlers and both attempted to flee from the spot with a motorcycle. However, the police personnel apprehended and search was made and contraband substance recovered from the co-accused namely; Shaik Farid but no contrabands were recovered from the petitioner. The police apprehended the petitioner along with other accused persons and lodged the ejahar and registered the case under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the aforementioned case and that no contrabands were seized from the petitioner by the police on apprehension. On the other hand, Mr. T Ete submits before this Court that although nothing has been recovered from the petitioner but he submits that in such a case, Section 29 comes into play, wherein it is provided that whoever abets or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, is liable, even in such offence is not committed. He submits that the fact of the case is that the petitioner was looking for clients and that the co-accused Sh. Shaik Farid was supposed to sale the contrabands to those clients and as such, the petitioner is involved in the present offence. He also placed the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in State of Kerala vs. Mohammad Riyas, wherein the Hon’ble High Court had observed that Section 29 of the NDPS Act can also get attracted in cases of bail and also be applicable when no contrabands are recovered from the petitioner. It is also submitted that the mandatory grounds of arrest under

¶16

Page No.# 3/4

¶17

as required Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 52 of the NDPS Act is also been served upon the petitioner.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the Case Diary.

¶19

It is noticed in the FIR dated 7th May, 2025 that on an information received the police personnel had intercepted and apprehended three accused persons and the petitioner was one amongst him. However, it is noticed that no contrabands were recovered from the petitioner although the petitioner was found in the company of the co-accused. The statement of the witness more specifically the informant recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC also reveals that he along with other police personnel during the raid, apprehended the petitioner along with other accused persons and that they could not recover contrabands from the petitioner. Further, the present case is under which the petitioner is booked is under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act involving an intermediate quantity. Since there is nothing in the records showing that he had involved in the offence although he had accompanied the co-accused, this Court for the interest of justice enlarges the petitioner on bail on furnishing of a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia. However, the bail is subjected to the following conditions:-

¶20