✦ Gauhati High Court · 16 Dec 2022

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM & Anr. v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

ROBIN PHUKAN3 min read

Case at a glance

Judgment

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Date : 16.12.2022 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. PP, appearing for the State Respondent, Assam. This application, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is preferred by accused/applicant, namely, (1) Md. Imdadul Hoque, and (2) Sofiqul Islam, who have been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Diphu Police Station Case No. 93/2022, under Sections 21 (a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for grant of bail. The said case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by Md. Nurul Amin on 10.11.2022, to the effect that on the same day at about 10.00 am, they have apprehended one Md. Imdadul Hoque while he was selling drugs in front of the shop situated at Rongnihang Pathar and he also disclosed that another person namely, Sofiqul Islam is also associated with him and then they have apprehended both of them and reported the matter to the Police. Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that both the accused were arrested on 10.11.2022, and since then they have been languishing in jail hazot for last 35 days and, while nothing has been recovered from the possession of Sofiqul Islam, the quantity of drugs recovered from the possession of the other accused Md. Imdadul Hoque is only 0.08 grams, which is a small quantity and that he is a consumer, and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. On the other hand Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional PP has opposed the petition as investigation is yet to be constructed. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and it appears that both the accused were arrested on 10.11.2022, and they are behind the Page No.# 3/3 bar for the last 35 days and it also appears from the seizure list Annexure-2 that only

0.08 grams of suspected heroine was recovered from the possession Md. Imdadul Hoque and nothing has been recovered from accused Sofiqul Islam. Having regards to the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for the same and also having regard to the period of detention in jail hazot, this Court is of the view that the further custodial detention of the accused seems to be unwarranted, in this case, in the interest of investigation. And accordingly, it is provided that accused/applicants, namely, 1) Md. Imdadul Hoque, and (2) Sofiqul Islam, in connection with Diphu Police Station Case No. 93/2022, under Sections 21 (a) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, shall be released on bail on his executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Karbi Anglong Diphu. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21(a).

Which court decided this case, and when?

Gauhati High Court, on 16 Dec 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments