The Gauhati High Court was asked to cancel bail granted to the accused on grounds of procedural delay. The court found no evidence of bail condition violation and rejected the reference application.
The interlocutory application was rejected disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010181572018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.) 628/2018
1:UNION OF INDIA
THROUGH NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU, REP. BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, VIP ROAD, RUPKUNWAR PATH, CHACHAL, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI- 781022
VERSUS
1:FARUQUE AHMED S/O- BADIUZ ZAMAN, R/O- VILL.- GANDHI NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S.- BARPETA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ANUPAM PATH, HATIGAON, GUWAHATI-38, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M H ANSARI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
Date : 07-01-2020
Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB, for the applicant and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.
Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB, submits that in this case, bail was granted to the accused on the ground that investigation was not completed within 180, i.e., the statutory period for completion of investigation, however, the investigation was completed on 16-072018, on 180th day and charge-sheet was laid.
On examination of the order, dated 25-07-2018, passed in Bail Application No. 927/2018, granting bail to the accused, it is found that the learned counsel for the NCB, to a pointed
Page No.# 2/2
query replied to this Court that investigation was not completed and on the date of passing of the order, it was 181st day. Accordingly, the order was appropriately passed on 25-07-2018 on the basis of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. However, Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB, has submitted that the accusedpetitioner has been appearing in the Court regularly after obtaining bail vide the aforesaid order, dated 25-07-2018, passed in Bail Application No. 927/2018. Such being the position and in the absence of any evidence that any condition of bail has been violated by the respondent, there is no tangible reason to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner vide the order referred to above.
Accordingly this petition is rejected.
The interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail granted to the accused based on investigation delay can be cancelled in absence of violation of bail conditions.
Union of India
Faruque Ahmed
Hitesh Kumar Sarma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
