THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and as the petitioner has completed the statutory period of detention, he is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to…
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Date : 19.07.2025 ORDER
Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who submits that in this case the case diary has been received which reveals that the petitioner, namely, Alkash Ali @ Nadu who was arrested in connection with Howly P.S. Case No. 27/2025 on
20.05.2025, has completed 61 days of detention behind the bars.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the quantity of contraband i.e., suspected heroin seized in this case is 12.60 grams which is Page No.# 2/2 intermediate quantity and, therefore, the statutory period of detention for which the petitioner may be detained behind the bars under Section 487 of BNSS is only 60 days which he has already completed.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and as the petitioner has completed the statutory period of detention, he is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Barpeta, with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation of the Howly P.S. Case No. 27/2025; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the Howly P.S. Case No. 27/2025 as and when so required by him for the sake of fair completion of the investigation; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer; iv. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Special Judge, Barpeta without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and
This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 487.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 19 Jul 2025. The bench was MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA.
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.