Dismissed
Nasiur Rahman v. the State of Assam
Gauhati HCBail Appln./2269/2026
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
GAHC010166852026 2026:GAU-AS:13725 THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
GAHC010166852026 2026:GAU-AS:13725 THE…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010166852026
2026:GAU-AS:13725
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2269/2026
NASIUR RAHMAN
S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN, R/O FANCYPARA, GARIGAON, PS JALUKBARI, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, S YESMIN,MR K THAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
Date : 16.09.2026
Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner, namely, Nasiur Rahman, has prayed for granting them bail after he was arrested on 17.06.2026 in connection with North Guwahati P.S. Case No.09/2026 under Section 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 .
Page No.# 2/3
3. The facts of the case in brief are that on 13.01.2026 an FIR was lodged by SI-Hemkanta Sharma at the North Guwahati PS stating therein that on 12.01.2026 an information was received that oneSolomon Kipgen had criminally conspired with Mofijul Haque, Nasiur Rahman and a few others for transportation of huge consignment of narcotics to Lower Assam via Amingaon, Kamrup in two vehicles. Accordingly, a team of police officials including the informant conducted an operation and intercepted a Thar vehicle bearing registration number AS 23 AD 6626 and a Maruti Jimny bearing registration no AS 01 GN 7404 on 12.01.2026 at about 11.35 PM at Amingaon. The driver of the Thar vehicle was Anowar Hussain Kazi and the driver of the Jimny vehicle was Aminul Sikdar. A search was conducted and 97 numbers of soap boxes containing Heroin were recovered from the vehicles. The weight of the Heroin was found to be 1358 gms without the soap boxes. The recovered contraband was seized and the accused persons were arrested.
4. Based on Guwahati PS Case No 09/2026 was registered U/S-21(c)/29 of NDPS Act. Subsequently, on 17.06.2026 accused-Nasiur Rahman was arrested since he was also found to be involved in the criminal conspiracy in trafficking Heroin along with the previously arrested accused persons.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been arrested solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused persons and besides that there are no other materials against him. Furthermore, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit stating that it has been wrongly mentioned in the forwarding report that Jalukbari PS case number 666 of 2022 under section 21(c)/29 NDPS Act is registered against the petitioner. But the said case pertains to a different person and under different sections and in this regard, a copy of the FIR of the said PS case has been annexed to the additional affidavit. Furthermore, it is submitted that as regards Palashbari PS case number 336 /2024, which is pending against the petitioner, though it was initially registered under section 21(c)/29 NDPS Act, the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act, which pertains to intermediate quantity and in that case also, no recovery was made from the petitioner and he was implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused persons.
6. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to have any criminal antecedents as such, which should result in denial of bail to the petitioner in the present case.
7. Per-Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the material available on record are sufficient to implicate the petitioner in the present case as alleged in the previous case.
8. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a rapido vendor and has been involved in criminal conspiracy for commission of offences pertaining to commercial quantity as in the present case.
Page No.# 3/3
9. On perusal of the charge sheet, it is seen that the petitioner was not apprehended at the place of occurrence and no recovery is made from him and none of the two vehicles which were seized are owned by the petitioner.
10 . It is stated in the charge sheet that the owner of the Jimny vehicle is one Mofizul Hoque and that of the third vehicle is Solomon Kipgen. Therefore, the only material linking the petitioner to the alleged offence is the statement of the co-accused persons.
11 . The Honourable Apex Court in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy –versus- the State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 INSC 725 has held that the statements of the co-accused cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of denying bail to the petitioner in the absence of any other material.
12 . Viewed from that position, it appears that the first condition imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act appears to be satisfied. However, since the petitioner has been charge-sheeted in connection with Palashbari P.S. Case No. 336/24, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, especially since the said case also pertains to offences under the NDPS Act.
13 . Based on the same and the material available on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not likely to commit an offence of a similar nature in the event of his being released on bail and therefore, the second condition imposed by section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been met.
14 . It is also settled law that both the conditions have to be satisfied in order to grant bail when the petitioner is accused of offence involving commercial quantity, as in the present case.
15 . The authority cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not pertain to this aspect of the matter.
16 . In view of the above discussion, the prayer for bail stands rejected, and the petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to a petitioner charged with NDPS offences involving commercial quantity solely based on co-accused statements.
Whether the presence of a prior pending NCDPS charge sheet precludes bail even if it involves a different quantity or section.
Whether both conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding commercial quantity offences are satisfied for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. Krishna Mohan Reddy –versus- the State of Andhra PradeshExplained¶28
P. Krishna Mohan Reddy –versus- the State of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 INSC 725 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Nasiur Rahman
The State of Assam
Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court