Bail Appln./766/2026 of SOHIN BASUMATARY Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 14 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 15.09.2026

1. Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the petitioner, namely, Sohin Basumatary, who has been detained behind the bars since 26.03.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 249/2025, arising out of Noonmati P.S. Case No. 64/2025, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The aforesaid NDPS case is presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Assam.

3. The gist of accusation against the petitioner in this case is that on the basis of an FIR filed by one Shri Swaraj Deka, SI of police of Noonmati Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 25.03.2025 at about 8:09 PM, an information was received through reliable sources that huge quantity of ganja was being smuggled from Udalguri to Narengi in a Bolero vehicle, the General Diary Entry to that effect was made and Noonmati P.S. Case No. 64/2025 was registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. In the FIR, it is further stated that after getting the information through reliable sources, a search team was constituted under the supervision of ACP of Police and naka checking was arranged at Narengi point. At about 9:50 PM, one Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12-AE-2086 was intercepted and the present petitioner was arrested therefrom. During search of the said vehicle, 6 numbers of white color plastic bags were recovered from the vehicle and on weighing, the weight of the said recovered material was found to be 30.875 kgs. The contraband was suspected to be ganja. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was initiated and the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner on 30.05.2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner faced the trial remaining in custody. The present status of the trial is that the examination of prosecution witnesses are over and the case is now fixed on 19th of September for recording the statement of the accused by the Trial Court. As such, it appears that the pending trial against the accused is at the fag end.

4. Mr. A. Bhattacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are several glaring non-compliances of the provisions of NDPS Act in this case by the investigating authorities, which goes to the core of the case, and as such for non-compliance of those mandatory provisions, the petitioner is entitled to get bail in spite of the fact that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity. He submits that in this case, from the testimony of PW-4 as well as PW-8, it appears that the provisions contained in Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as well as Section 57 and Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with while conducting the search and after completing the search procedure.

5. He submits that there are glaring contradiction in the testimony of witnesses, which raises doubt even regarding the quantity of contraband seized by the seizing officer. He submits that PW-4 and PW-8 have failed to justify the correctness of the condition of the weighing machine which was used to weigh the seized contraband.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, as such, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to this case. He further submits that since the trial is pending at its fag end and after examination of the accused petitioner, the only stage of argument remains before delivery of judgment and as such, at this stage, if the plea taken by the petitioner are to be considered, this Court may have to go into the merit of the case, which may have an impact on the outcome of the trial.

7. He submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner in this bail application may well be considered by the Trial Court and, hence, he submits that at this stage, the contentions raised by the petitioner may not be gone into and the Trial Court may be allowed to decide those pleas in the final judgment. As such, he prays for dismissing the bail application at this stage.

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

9. On perusal of record, it appears that though the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing bail application which was registered as BA No. 2264/2025, however, said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on filing of the charge-sheet against him. It also appears that the petitioner had also approached the Trial Court for bail and from record, it appears that his last bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on 07.03.2026 after going through the materials available on record.

10. After considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, in the instant bail application, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to bring to the notice of this Court the inherent contradiction amongst the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who have been examined by the Trial Court. The petitioner has also taken plea of violation of provisions like Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act by the investigating agency. This Court is of considered opinion that if the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to be considered by this Court, it has to go into the merit of the case including the examination of the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution side, which is in the considered opinion of this Court is best to leave it for the Trial Court to examine.

11. More so, considering the stage of the trial, as the trial has reached its fag end and it is a matter of time only that it will be concluded, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise such pleas before the Trial Court during final argument before the said Court and this Court is of the opinion that if at this stage, this Court goes into the contentions raised by the petitioner and gives a finding thereon, it may have a bearing on the mind of the Trial Court while adjudicating the case pending before it. As such, this bail application is dismissed with an observation that the petitioner will be at liberty to raise such pleas before the Trial Court during its final argument of the pending NDPS Case No. 249/2025.

12. It is also observed that the Trial Court shall also make endeavor to culminate the trial as expeditiously as possible.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant