THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
application on merit earlier, the present petition stands disposed of by way of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 22(b), 37(1)(b)(ii)
Judgment
Operative part
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./85/2022 MUSSTT RUKIYA BEGUM W/O ALIM UDDIN R/O VILL- PUB JUMUNAGAON P.O. AMBARI, P.S. MURAJHAR DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN-782445 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F K R AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA 17-02-2022 ORDER This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Musstt. Rukiya Begum, in connection with Spl. NDPS Case No. 23/2021, arising out of Murajhar Police Station Case No. 456 of 2020, registered under Sections 22(b) of the NDPS Act. Heard Mr. F.K.R. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. Page No.# 2/2 This is third application for bail of the petitioner. The prayer for bail was rejected considering the materials in the case diary as well as taking into account the rigors of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a new ground of ailment of the petitioner, in course of his submission. The medical report called for, has been received, which shows that the petitioner was suffering from Covid-19 and she has recovered and by this time, she has also been released from the hospital. That being so, in the considered view of this Court, the ground taken by the petitioner does not exists as of now. Therefore, in view of rejection of the application on merit earlier, the present petition stands disposed of by way of rejection. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application on merit earlier, the present petition stands disposed of by way of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 22(b), 37(1)(b)(ii).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.