Yeahiya Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 21 January, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Yeahiya Ahmed vs The State Of Assam on 21 January, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010272682024




                                                                  undefined

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3896/2024

            YEAHIYA AHMED
            S/O ABDUS SUBUR,
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHUNDRAKANDI, PO KALIGANJ BAZAR, PS AND
            DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP BY PP ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR Z RAHMAN, MR. A M KHAN,MR S PRODHANI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                           ORDER

Date : 21.01.2025

Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Z.
Rahman, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely,
Page No.# 2/4

Yeahiya Ahmed, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with
Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 255/2024, under Sections 21(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS
Act, for grant of bail.

3. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR
lodged by SI(P) Bibek Bezboruah of Dispur P.S. on 13.11.2024. The essence of
allegation against the present accused is that acting on a tip off, the informant,
along with other staff, conducted search in the Central Guest House located at
Naharani Path, under Hatigaon P.S. and apprehended four persons, namely, Md.
Hasu Miya, Amina Khatun, Akmal Hussain and Yeahiya Ahmed, and recovered
ten thousand suspected Yaba tablets and eleven grams of suspected heroin
from their possession and seized the same in presence of witnesses.

4. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused submits that the
accused is an employee of Central Guest House and by virtue of his
employment, he was present at the guest house, and that he is no way involved
with the offence alleged in the FIR and nothing has been recovered from his
possession, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has
collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, and that the
contraband substances so recovered from the possession of the accused, are of
commercial quantity, and nothing has been shown to satisfy the twin
requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act that he is not guilty of the offence
and that he will not commit any offence while on bail, and therefore, it is
contended to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have
Page No.# 3/4

carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and
also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor.

7. It appears that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials
against the accused, who was very much present at the Central Guest House,
from where the suspected contraband substances were recovered and seized.
Further, it appears that the contraband substances, so recovered from the
possession of the accused, are of commercial quantity and as such, there is a
requirement for satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In
the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal
Appeal No. 952 of 2023 [arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2351 of
2023], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:

“In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no
person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial
quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”

8. But, in the instant case, from a perusal of the case diary and also from the
submission of Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, this Court
is unable to derive satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence and
that he will not commit any offence while on bail.

9. It appears that investigation is going on and the offences are serious in
nature, and under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a
fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage
and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.

Page No.# 4/4

10. Case diary be returned.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant