Ranjit Saha vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Ranjit Saha, sought regular bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged that e-way bills recovered from a seized truck, transporting a large quantity of Codeine Phosphate-based cough syrup concealed in palm oil containers, bore the GST number of the petitioner's firm, "Maa Sushila Agency." The petitioner admitted the GST number belonged to him but claimed his business, dealing in agro products including palm oil, was misused by the actual culprits. He argued he had no connection to the truck or the consignment and had cooperated with the investigation by responding to notices under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and appearing in person. The petitioner was arrested on January 11, 2026.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner. It held that based on the available material, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner might not be guilty of the offences charged under the NDPS Act. The Court noted that the primary evidence against the petitioner was the e-way bills reflecting his firm's GSTIN, which he contended could have been used without his knowledge, a contention not refuted by the prosecution. Furthermore, the Court found no material to suggest that the petitioner was likely to involve himself in similar offences if granted bail. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, it needed to form a view on whether reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner might not be guilty, not to declare him innocent. The Court directed the petitioner's release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 100,000/- with two sureties of like amount, with conditions to attend trial and not influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of the offences under the NDPS Act, considering the available material, particularly the e-way bills reflecting his GSTIN, and the absence of direct evidence linking him to the contraband or the truck? 2. Whether there is material on record to suggest that if granted bail, the petitioner is likely to commit offences of a similar nature? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that his GSTIN was misused by the actual culprits for transporting contraband. He asserted no connection to the truck or the seized goods, and that his business of groceries and palm oil was legitimate. He highlighted his cooperation with the investigation by responding to Section 67 notices and appearing personally, suggesting he had no guilty mind. He also pointed out the lack of direct evidence, such as dealings with the consignors (Meera Trade Exim and Radha Agency) or call detail records implicating him. Revenue's Arguments: The prosecution argued that the petitioner's GSTIN appearing on the e-way bills, with the contraband concealed in palm oil containers destined for his firm, clearly indicated his involvement.