Allowed

Nazrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Nov 2021Bail Appln./2204/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a bail application filed by Nazrul Islam under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a narcotics case. The court held that though charges were framed, the rigors of the NDPS Act regarding bail did not strictly apply, and since custodial trial was not essential, bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000 with a suitable surety of the like amount.

Nazrul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010139892021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./2204/2021

¶5

NAZRUL ISLAM SON OF IDRISH ALI R/O VILL- KOPAHARTARI PO.S. AND DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶11

ORDER

¶12

03-11-2021

¶13

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Nazrul Islam, in connection with NDPS case No. 38/2021 arising out of Sorbhog P.S. case No. 102/2021, registered under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner and Mrs. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

Perused the order, dated 26-10-2021. In accordance with the said order, this Court has received the clarification. It has been stated by the learned Special Judge in the said clarification, vide letter dated 02-11-2021, that charge against the present petitioner has been framed under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, so far the bail of the petitioner is concerned, rigors of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is not applicable in the instant case. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has no indefeasible right of bail in view of laying of chargesheet in the instant case.

¶17

On perusal of the status report, it is found that the case has been posted by the learned Court below for recording of evidence on 11-11-2021 and till date, one witness has been examined.

¶18

The certified copy of the deposition of the PW1 has been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears from such deposition that PW1 is the informant as well as the Investigating Police Officer.

¶19

Pointing to the evidence of the informant/Investigating Police Officer, it has been submitted that nothing has been seized from the present petitioner, and the petitioner has even not been implicated by the witness in any manner. I have perused the scanned copy of the entire case diary.

¶20

It is found that there is no such material to indicate that the petitioner has committed the offence. The accused-petitioner has been in judicial custody for a period of 157 days as on date.

¶21

On consideration of the entire materials on record, this Court is of the view that custodial trial of the petitioner is not essential in the instant case. That being so, the petitioner is granted bail.

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned jurisdictional Special Judge under the NDPS Act.

¶24

The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accusedpetitioner:

¶25

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional Special Judge under the NDPS Act, without prior written permission from him;

¶26

(b) shall not tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶27

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶28

(d) shall regularly appear before the learned trial court on each and every date of the case and in the event of his failure to appear before the learned trial Court on any date fixed by it, the learned Court below shall be at liberty to proceed with the trial of the case keeping him in custody.

¶29

In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Nazrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Anup Kumar Dutta Vs Shri K.H. Bimalendu Singha

Md. Majibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Khalilur Bhuyan Vs the State of Assam

Laxman Passwan @ Lakshman Paswan and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Soram Nilakanta Singh Vs the Union of India

Nur Ahmed Barbhuyan Vs the State of Assam