Gauhati High Court
Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Assam on 22 April, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010263632025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3894/2025
SRI AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
S/O RAMESH SAH ALIAS RAMESH GUPTA, R/O VILL JAITPURA, PO
NUAON, PS NUAON, DIST KAIMUR, BIHAR, PIN CODE 802132
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MS. K DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
:: BEFORE ::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
O R D E R
22.04.2026
Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. Bankim Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for regular
bail in respect of NDPS Case No.156/2025 pending in the court of the learned Addl.
District & Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati.
3. Commercial quantity of morphine was recovered from the possession of the
petitioner. After filing of the charge sheet, the case is pending for trial.
4. Mr. Choudhury has submitted that for the last one year, none of the witnesses
have been examined by the trial court. According to Mr. Choudhury, Section 48 of the
BNSS, 2023 was also not complied with.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
6. In State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
“18. This Court has laid down broad parameters to be followed while considering the
application for bail moved by the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
In Union of India v. Ram Samujh [Union of India v. Ram Samujh, (1999) 9 SCC 429 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 1522] , it has been elaborated as under:
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be
adhered to and followed. It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the
accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing
in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death-blow to a
number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects
and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are
released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of
trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and
illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to
punishment under the NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of
such activities in Durand Didier v. State (UT of Goa) [Durand Didier v. State (UT of
Goa), (1990) 1 SCC 95 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 65] as under: (SCC p. 104, para 24)
’24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the
underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances
have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the
adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and
alarming proportions in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control
and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing
deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, Parliament in its
wisdom, has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying
mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine.’
Page No.# 3/5
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, Parliament has
provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be
released on bail during trial unless the mandatory conditions provided in Section 37,
namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such
offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail
are satisfied. The High Court has not given any justifiable reason for not abiding by the
aforesaid mandate while ordering the release of the respondent-accused on bail.
Instead of attempting to take a holistic view of the harmful socio-economic
consequences and health hazards which would accompany trafficking illegally in
dangerous drugs, the court should implement the law in the spirit with which
Parliament, after due deliberation, has amended.”
7. In Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has again held as under:
“19. With regard to the grant of bail for offences under the NDPS Act, in Union of
India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 :
(2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] this Court observed that bail may be cancelled if it has been
granted without adhering to the parameters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Further, in Union of India v. Prateek Shukla [Union of India v. Prateek Shukla, (2021) 5
SCC 430 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 597] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.), speaking for a
two-Judge Bench, noted that non-application of mind to the rival submissions and the
seriousness of the allegations involving an offence under the NDPS Act by the High
Court are grounds for cancellation of bail.
This extract is taken from Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 :
(2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 721 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1237 at page 110
20. Section 37 of the NDPS Act regulates the grant of bail in cases involving offences
under the NDPS Act. Section 37 reads as follows:
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.–(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974),–
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19
or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial
quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless —
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
Page No.# 4/5of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail .
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause ( b) of sub-section (1) are
in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (2 of 1974)
or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant of bail for offences
punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A and also for offences involving a commercial
quantity are:
(i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail;
and
(ii) There must exist “reasonable grounds to believe” that : ( a) the person is not
guilty of such an offence; and (b) he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail.
22. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is “reasonable ground to believe” that
the person is not guilty of the offence. Interpreting the standard of “reasonable
grounds to believe”, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Shiv Shanker Kesari [Union of
India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 505] , held that :
(SCC pp. 801-02, paras 7-8 & 10-11)
“7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The
expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes
substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the
offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence
of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording
of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.
8. The word “reasonable” has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable in
regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably,
knows or ought to know. It is difficult to give an exact definition of the word
“reasonable”.
‘7. … Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, 4th Edn., p. 2258 states that it would be
unreasonable to expect an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. Reason
varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual, and the
times and circumstances in which he thinks. The reasoning which built up the
old scholastic logic sounds now like the jingling of a child’s toy.’
[See MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar [MCD v. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, (1987) 4
SCC 497] , SCC p. 504, para 7 and Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. [Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage
Board v. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd., (1989) 1 SCC 532] ]
***
10. The word “reasonable” signifies “in accordance with reason”. In the ultimate
analysis it is a question of fact, whether a particular act is reasonable or not
depends on the circumstances in a given situation. (See Municipal Corpn. of
Page No.# 5/5
Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd. [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla
Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315] )
11. The court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37
of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited
purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that
the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such
grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a
judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.”
(emphasis supplied)”
8. Reverting to the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that in this case, there
are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has not committed any
offence. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant