Amal Das Vs the State of Assam

1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶17

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Amal Das who has been detained behind the bars since 21.03.2025 (for the last 351 days) in

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

connection with Special NDPS Case No. 172(N)/2025 under Sections 61(2)/123 read with Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The aforesaid case is presently pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2 cum Special Judge, Nagaon.

¶20

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 28.01.2025, one Partha Prtim Gogoi, S.I. of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Nagaon Police Station regarding recovery of commercial quantity of Tramadol tablets from three accused persons who were occupant of a vehicle bearing the Registration No. AS01 HC 1810. The name of the persons from whom the commercial quantity of the contraband was seized are No. 1 – Ajay Sahani, No.2 – Mujibur Rahman and No. 3 Musaraf Hussain.

¶21

4. Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the petitioner was apprehended on 21.03.2025 on the ground that it is he who had supplied the contraband to the persons from whom it was recovered, however, he submits that in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which were served on the petitioner as well as his wife, no accusation against the petitioner has been made, rather it was mentioned in the point No. 3 of the said notice that the FIR named accused disclosed name of one Anil Das from whom they had brought psychotropic substance.

¶22

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that apart from the statement of the co-accused, there is no material to implicate the present petitioner, though, the charge-sheet has also been laid against the petitioner along with the other co-accused.

¶23

6. However, as there is no admissible evidence against the present

¶24

Page No.# 3/5

¶25

petitioner on record he is entitled to get bail in this case.

¶26

7. On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that apart from the statement of the co-accused there is no other material on record against the present petitioner.

¶27

8. I have gone through the materials available on record and have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶28

9. It is no longer res integra that after judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 though the statement of the co-accused cannot be used as evidence against another co-accused in a trial involving offence under NDPS Act, 1985.

¶29

10. In the instant case, apparently even after getting late during the investigation, it was only from the statement of co-accused recorded during investigation that the present petitioner who alleged to have supplied the contraband to the arrested accused persons from whose possession the contraband was recovered. However, no admissible evidence could be collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

¶30

11. As such in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra), there is no admissible evidence against the present petitioner on record to implicate him for the offences alleged in this case.

¶31

12. In that view the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is also not applicable to the present petitioner. Moreover, if we peruse the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which is served upon the petitioner as well as notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which was served on the wife of the petitioner, it has been mentioned that the contraband which was recovered in

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

this case was brought from one Anil Das.

¶34

13. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that this might be a typographical mistake, however, there is no material on record even to come to a conclusion that the same is a typographical mistake. Under such circumstances, the above named petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case.

¶35

14. Accordingly, Shri Amal Das is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaon with the following conditions:-

¶36

i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special NDPS Case No. 172(N)/2025, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Nagaon;

¶37

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

¶38

iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioners;

¶39

iv. That the petitioner shall provide her contact details including photocopies of her Aadhar Card, Driving License, PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;

¶40