Allowed

Nabadeep Kr. Shill v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Mar 2021Bail Appln./382/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Gauhati High Court granted bail to an accused employee of Karimganj Jail charged with furnishing contraband. The court held that further custodial detention beyond 42 days was unnecessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Accused-granted bail on Rs.15,000 bond with suitable surety. Conditions include staying within jurisdiction, not hampering investigation, and not influencing witnesses.

Nabadeep Kr. Shill Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010023672021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./382/2021

¶6

NABADEEP KR. SHILL

¶7

S/O PHAJIN SHILL, VILL-PATILADOHA JAUKAPARA, P.S.-MANIKPUR, DISTBONGAIGAON, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02-03-2021

¶14

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Nabadeep Kr. Shill, in connection with Karimganj Police Station Case No. 23/2021 , registered under Section 182 of the IPC, read with Sections 21(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 .

¶15

I have perused the petition including the copy of the FIR and the documents annexed therewith.

¶16

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

¶17

The allegation against the present petitioner is that he is an employee of Karimganj jail and he has allegedly provided some contraband to the jail inmates on 06-01-2021. The contraband seized in the instant case is 6.67 grams of suspected heroin. However, the same

¶18

Page No.# 2/2

¶19

was not recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. whatever it may be, the accused-petitioner has been in custody for a period of 42 days as on date with effect from the date of his arrest.

¶20

Considering the period of detention of the accused-petitioner, his further custodial detention beyond 42 days is not necessary for the purpose of investigation of this case. That being so, the accused-petitioner is granted bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the case aforementioned on furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- with a suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Karimganj.

¶22

The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the accused-petitioner:

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Nabadeep Kr. Shill v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabadeep Kr. Shill 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

Guljar Ali Vs the State of Assam

Musst. Johura Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Faruk Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Jatin Saikia Vs the State of Assam

Ayat Ullah and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Mujamel Ali Vs the State of Assam