THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21(b), 29
Judgment
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 10.11.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. N. K. Das, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, Rahul Ali @ Md. Rahul Ali @ Page No.# 2/3 Rinku, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with the Hajo P.S. Case No.870/2022 under Section 21 (b)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Bishnu Jyoti Borah, S.I. Hajo Police Station on 15.09.2022, to the effect that acting as a tip off raid was conducted in the house premises of father in law one Tabibar Rahman, located at Dampur Fakirsupa, at about 9.15 pm and
Operative part
11.9 grams of brown colored power like substance suspected to be heroine, and one blue coloured empty soap case was recovered from the said house. The learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 19.09.2022, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot and that nothing has been recovered from his possession and he has been arrested only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused and that he is ready to co-operate with the investigating agency, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. On the other hand, Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional PP has produced the case diary before this Court and on the basis of the material collected so far in the case diary, Mr. B. B. Gogoi, has vehemently opposed in allowing this petition. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the Case Diary produced before this Court with the assistance of Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It appears that the accused was arrested on 19.09.2022, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot. Further, it appears that nothing has been Page No.# 3/3 recovered from his possession and only 11.09 grams of brown colored powder is substance suspected to be heroin was recovered from the possession of one Tabibar Rahman. It also appears that the IO got sufficient time for investigation and all the co-accused have also been arrested and material witnesses have been examined and there remains to collect the FSL report only. Considering the above facts and circumstances, specially the period of detention and also the submissions by the learned Advocates for both sides this Court is incline to allow this petition. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge NDPS Act Kamrup, Amingaon the accused namely, Rahul Ali @ Md. Rahul Ali @ Rinku, be enlarged on bail, in Hajo P.S. Case No.870/2022 under Section 21 (b)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. Case diary returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 21(b), 29.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gauhati High Court, on 10 Nov 2022. The bench was ROBIN PHUKAN.
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.