Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2143/2026 of AMIT RAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 August 2026
GAHC010157852026 2026:GAU-AS:11641 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2143/2026 AMIT RAM SON OF SRI SUDHIR RAM R/O - GHAZIABAD KHORA COLONY P.S. NIB CHOWKY DISTRICT - GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH PIN - 201309 VERSUS THE STATE
GAHC010157852026
2026:GAU-AS:11641
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2143/2026
AMIT RAM
SON OF SRI SUDHIR RAM R/O - GHAZIABAD KHORA COLONY P.S. NIB
CHOWKY DISTRICT - GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH PIN - 201309
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY P.P., ASSAM .
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MS. P DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
17.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.
2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Amit Ram, praying for grant of bail in connection with NDPS Case No.146/2026 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M), Guwahati arising out of Gorchuk PS Case No.
334/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act.
3. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and produced.
4. The quantity allegedly recovered from the petitioner is commercial quantity which was being carried in 6 luggage bags and the petitioner was apprehended at the ISBT, Guwahati.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the luggage and the same was recovered only because he was sitting near the area where the luggage was kept. Accordingly, he prays that the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of bail during the further proceedings in the matter.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that from the statements made in the petition and also the relevant documents of the trial court records it does not appear that the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has been fulfilled to consider the case of the petitioner.
7. Having gone through the records and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not convinced that the petitioner has been able to overcome the mandatory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. Accordingly, at this stage, the prayer for bail of the petitioner cannot be considered and the same is rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that directions may be issued that the trial court to proceed expeditiously in the matter. Though such directions are not called for in a bail application, liberty is granted to the petitioner to make appropriate prayers before the learned trial court in case there is an inappropriate delay in the conduct of the trial.
10. Bail petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant