Bail Appln./2238/2026 of RABIYAL MIYA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 25-08-2026 Heard Mr. A. R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. Invoking section 483 BNSS, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 308/2025 under section

21(c)/25/29 NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The case had arisen out of the Basistha PS Case No. 313/2025 which was registered based on an FIR dated 04.06.2025. The allegation in a nutshell in the said FIR was that a confidential information was received by Basistha police about huge consignment of heroin being transported in a six wheeler truck bearing registration No. AS01LC 1253.

4. Accordingly, an operation was initiated and the vehicle was intercepted. The driver and handyman were found inside and in the presence of independent seizure witnesses, named in the FIR, the search was conducted whereupon 22 soap boxes were found containing suspected heroin in different quantities. The total weight of the suspected heroin was found to be 295.46 grams. It may be mentioned herein that quantity above 250 grams in case of heroin falls in the bracket of commercial quantity. Both the driver and the handyman were apprehended and the present petitioner, Rabiyal Miya, is stated to be the driver.

5. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the case and the case is presently pending for trial before the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS. The petitioner was arrested on 04.06.2025 and continues to be under trial detention.

6. Mr. Sikdar, learned counsel apart from pointing out the length of detention also submits that the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by the learned Trial Judge rejecting the bail is erroneous. It is submitted that the petitioner was not at all in conscious possession of the alleged contraband.

7. The scanned record is available.

8. Therefrom, I find that that the Trial court was pleased to frame charges against both the accused persons under section 21 (c)/25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 29(c) pertains to commercial quantity wherein the rigors of section 37 of the Act have to be tested to decide the question of bail.

9. The learned counsel has referred to the decision in Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 to contend that long incarceration during trial should entitle the petitioner to bail. The decision in Avtar Singh & Ors Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2002) 7 SCC 419 has been relied upon to contend that the petitioner was not in conscious possession. Reference has been made to the decision of Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2026 INSC 12 to buttress his submission on long detention.

10. The decision in Mohammad Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 0 Supreme SC 289 was also referred to contend that due to long incarceration, bail can be granted despite the rigours of Section 37 NDPS.

11. On the other hand, the learned Additional PP opposing the bail submits that the materials implicate the accused persons and there is no infirmity in the decision of the learned Trial Judge in holding that the rigours of section 37 would prohibit grant of bail.

12. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions of the learned counsels.

13. The informant has supported the allegations about seizure of the contraband from the truck upon search. I have carefully perused the statements of the seizure witnesses who were purportedly witness to the search and both of them have submitted on similar lines about conducting of the search in the truck, finding of soap boxes and heroin therein.

14. Upon considering all the materials including the seizure documents, I hold for the purpose of bail adjudication that it cannot be said that there are no reasonable grounds to hold that the accused persons are not guilty. To that extent, the statutory bar on grant of bail would prevail.

15. As far as the principle laid down in K. A. Najeeb (supra) it remains to be seen whether the trigger point has been reached whereby the said constitutional principles under Article 21 would prevail under statutory restrictions like section 37 NDPS Act.

16. In the case of Mohammad Muslim (supra), the appellant had been in custody for more than 7 years and trial had not progressed sufficiently and therefore, bail was granted despite application of section 37 of the NDPS Act. The aspect of conscious possession contended by the learned counsel would, in my view, be a matter of trial after adducing of evidence in which the accused also has to discharge the reverse burden under the Act.

17. In the facts of this case, in my considered view, the trigger point in terms of K. A. Najeeb (supra) whereby bail can be granted on the ground of length of detention overlooking section 37 NDPS Act has not yet been reached.

18. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, the instant bail petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

19. Return the case records. JUDGE Comparing Assistant