Gauhati High Court
Sri Iqbal Bahar @ Ikbal Bahar @ Mamon vs Narcotics Control Bureau on 23 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010095402025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1041/2025
SRI IQBAL BAHAR @ IKBAL BAHAR @ MAMON
S/O- ANAM UDDIN.
R/O- LAFASHAIL. P.O- LAKHI BAZAR.
DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
PIN-788709
VERSUS
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R RONGMEI, S. DEVI,D GONMEI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 23.07.2025
1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the NCB.
2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioner, namely, Sri Iqbal Bahar @ Ikbal Bahar @ Mamon, who has been
apprehending his arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 3/2025 under
Page No.# 2/4
Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on receipt of an information
through reliable sources that one L. Lunkhomang Mate would be carrying 7.473
kgs of methamphetamine tablets from Moreh in Manipur to Silchar to hand it
over to someone, a naka checking was arranged at Lailapur Police Post. During
the naka checking operation, one Mahindra XUV 500 vehicle bearing
Registration No. AS-01-BV-4318 was intercepted and 7.473 kgs of
methamphetamine were recovered there from.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has received a notice under Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 in
connection with the aforesaid case. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is in no way involved in the case in which the
aforesaid contraband was recovered. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner is a businessman dealing with the business of
electronics at Karimganj. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-
operate in the investigation. However, as non-bailable offence under Section
22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act is involved in the case, he is apprehending that he
may be arrested in connection with the case. He also submits that apart from
the statement of the co-accused, there might not be anything on record against
the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submits that in view of the
rulings of the Apex Court in the case of ” Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu”
reported in “(2021) 4 SCC 1”, the statement of co-accused may not be regarded
as an incriminating evidence against the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
Page No.# 3/4
6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has
vehemently opposed the grant of anticipated bail or any interim protection to
the petitioner at this stage. He submits that prior to the issuance of notice dated
08.07.2025 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to the present petitioner, notices
under the aforesaid provision were issued to him on two prior occasions and on
both the occasions, the petitioner has defaulted in appearing before the
investigating agency.
7. The learned standing counsel for the NCB also submits that the co-
accused who was arrested along with the contraband has, in his voluntary
statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, has implicated the
present petitioner and there are materials in the case diary to indicate that the
present petitioner was the intended recipient of the contraband which has been
seized in this case. He submits that even for grant of anticipatory bail, the
petitioner has to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
He further submits that at the stage of investigation, when an anticipatory bail
has been filed in a case involving commercial quantity of NDPS Act, the
observation of Apex Court in the case of ” Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
(supra) would not come into aid of the petitioner. In support of his submission,
the learned standing counsel for the NCB has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in
the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar” reported in “2022 0 Supreme
(SC) 1562”, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court as follows:-
“8. In cases of this nature, the respondents may be able to take
advantage of the decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil
Nadu (supra), perhaps at the time of arguing the regular
bail application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the
trial.
9. To grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is not really
warranted. Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court fell into
Page No.# 4/4
an error in granting anticipatory bail to the respondents.”
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have gone through the case diary of NCB Crime No. 3/2025.
9. It appears that on perusal of the case diary that at this stage
statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985
implicates the present petitioner of being the intended recipient of the
contraband which was recovered in this case.
10. The Apex Court in the case of “State of Haryana Vs. Samarth Kumar“
(supra) has observed that in cases of such nature, the respondent may be able
to take advantage of the decision of ” Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu”
(supra) only at the time of arguing for regular bail application or at the time of
hearing after conclusion of trial. However, it has observed that grant of
anticipatory bail is not warranted in such cases.
11. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the aforesaid
case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.
12. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link