Bail Appln./1917/2026 of BABUL ISLAM KHAN AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 19 August 2026

ORDER

20.08.2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.

2. This application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by two accused, namely, Babul Islam Khan and Israful Islam, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 12.06.2026, in connection with Bhuragaon P.S. Case No.37/2026 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, for grant of bail.

3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by S.I. Rajkumar Kaman of Bhuragaon P.S., on 26.05.2026. The essence of allegation in the FIR, dated 26.05.2026, is that acting on a tip off, they had conducted search in the house of one Muniya Chouhan, situated at Boramari Kochari Basti under Bhuragaon P.S., and recovered total 87.69 kg of Ganja and seized the same preparing seizure list and she made a statement that she had purchased the cannabis (Ganja) from Babul Islam Khan and Israful Islam, then both of them were arrested and forwarded to the jail hazot.

4. Mr. Poddar, learned counsel for the accused, referring to the forwarding report and also to the notice under Section 47 of BNSS issued to the accused and also the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, issued to the relative of the accused, submits that both the accused were arrested only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused i.e. Muniya Chouhan and none of the witnesses examined by the I.O. has implicated them with the offence alleged and therefore, Mr. Poddar has contended to release both the accused on bail, as the statement of the co-accused is inadmissible in evidence.

5. Per contra, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the contraband substances were allegedly recovered from the possession of Muniya Chouhan who had purchased the same from the present two accused persons and besides, they have been charge-sheeted under Section 25 also and under such circumstances, he submits that this petition may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court.

7. It appears from the FIR, the forwarding report, the notices under Sections 47 and 48 BNSS and also from the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court that the present accused persons were arrested only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, namely, Muniya Chouhan.

8. It is well settled in the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1, that confessional/voluntary statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act by the Investigating Officer are inadmissible in evidence and hit by Section 25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act and they cannot form the sole basis for conviction.

9. In the instant case, there is no materials against the present accused persons, except however the statement of the co-accused, which is held to be inadmissible in the case of Tofan Singh (supra).

10. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, this application stands allowed.

11. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- each, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Morigaon, the accused, namely, Babul Islam Khan and Israful Islam, shall be enlarged on bail. The Special Judge shall also be at liberty to impose any other condition to secure attendance of the accused during trial.

12. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE