Gauhati High Court
Sri Jonmani Patgiri vs The State Of Assam on 17 March, 2026
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010285252025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./4147/2025
SRI JONMANI PATGIRI
SON OF SRI JATIN CH. PATGIRI,
R/O VILL- BARAPHENA PATHAR, AMARATTARY P.O. ANANDA BAZAR, P.S.
SALBARI
DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN-781318
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J KALITA, MS. S DEB,MR. N J GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
17.03.2026
Heard Mr. J Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhaskhar Sharma,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner Sri
Jonmani Patgiri has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with
Page No.# 2/6
Guwahati GRPS Case No. 182/2025.
3. The petitioner is an employee of Rang International having its head office at
Ahmedabad, Gujrat. Here at Guwahati, this Company is a lessee of the Indian Railways.
4. On 11.12.2025, an FIR was lodged before Police alleging that on 09.12.2025 a
consignment of commercial quantity of cough syrups was unloaded at Kamakhya Station,
Guwahati. The railway authority even issued a gate pass for movement of the said goods.
5. The present petitioner is stationed at Kamakhya Railways Station and his job is to
unload the goods from the railway wagons and despatch the same to different persons who
ordered those goods. The documents available with the records show that different
pharmaceutical concerned ordered those goods.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.
7. In the case of State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court 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)
Page No.# 3/6’24. 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.’
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.”
8. In the Case of Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has 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
Page No.# 4/6
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 of 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.
Page No.# 5/6
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 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
Page No.# 6/6
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)
9. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is “reasonable ground to believe” that the
person is not guilty of the offence. In the case in hand, the documents available with the
records show that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the present petitioner is not
guilty of the offence. Therefore, his bail application is allowed.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner Sri Jonmani Patgiri who was arrested in connection with
Guwahati GRPS Case No. 182/2025 shall be released on bail of Rs.25,000/- with a surety of
like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
11. The petitioner is directed to appear before each and every date of hearing as fixed by
the learned Trial Court and if he fails to do so, the learned Trial Court shall have the liberty to
take steps for procuring his attendance in accordance with law.
12. The bail application is disposed of.
13. Case diary shall be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant