Dismissed

Md. Mujakkir Hussain Laskar v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC19 Sept 2022AB/2000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitioner's third pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court found sufficient prima facie incriminating evidence, noting that a large quantity of narcotic substances was recovered from the petitioner's pharmacy and that the petitioner was a prime accused.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's third pre-arrest bail application stands rejected.

Md. Mujakkir Hussain Laskar Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010140312022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : AB/2000/2022

¶5

MD. MUJAKKIR HUSSAIN LASKAR SON OF MD. A BDUL KALAM LASKAR R/O VILL- BORBOND PART-I, P.O. HAILAKANDI P.S. HAILAKANDI, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A SAHAD

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶12

ORDER

¶13

Date : 19.09.2022

¶14

Heard Mr. U. C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

¶15

By this third petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Md. Mujakkir Hussain Laskar, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Hailakandi P.S. Case No.

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

681/2021 /Spl. (NDPS) Case No. 12/2021 registered u/s 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

¶18

The scanned copy of the case record of Spl. (NDPS) Case No. 12/2021, as called for, is placed before this Court.

¶19

It may be mentioned that the earlier pre-arrest bail applications of the petitioner, being AB No.2952/2021 and AB No. 87/2022, were rejected twice by this Court vide orders, dated 22.12.2021 and 20.05.2022 respectively.

¶20

Mr. U. C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is innocent as he never stored any unauthorised drugs or cough syrup bottles as alleged and he was not present when the police raided his pharmacy. According to Mr. Rabha, the petitioner has been roped into a false and fabricated case and that the source of information was not reduced into writing. Mr. Rabha further submits that the seized articles were being not drug being cough syrup, they do not fall within the category of contraband under the NDPS Act. It has been emphatically submitted that the State police is not empowered to search in any suspected premises after sun set without authority of any gazetted officer and, as such, the case is bad for breach of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶21

Opposing the pre-arrest bail application, Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, submits that a part charge-sheet was filed against two accused persons under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, keeping further investigation on against the petitioner, who could not be arrested as he was absconding. Ms. Bora further submits that in view of involvement of a huge commercial quantity of contraband in this case and as there is sufficient prima

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

facie incriminating material against the petitioner, the instant pre-arrest bail application may not be considered favourably.

¶24

The matter relates to recovery and seizure of a large number of narcotic substances, i.e., codeine phosphate and chlorpheniramine melate syrup, from the petitioner’s pharmacy.

¶25

No new ground is citied for moving the instant third pre-arrest bail application by the petitioner.

¶26

It is noticed that in connection with the above noted case, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted part chargesheet against Didarul Islam and Munin Rasul Laskar under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and they have availed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. vide order, dated 04.09.2021 passed in the case.

¶27

The alleged commercial quantity of contraband was recovered and seized from the shop of the present petitioner and on chemical analysis done at the FSL gave positive tests for codeine (present as Codeine Phosphate).

¶28

The case diary shows the petitioner as the prime accused in the case and there is sufficient prima facie incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The investigation into the case against the petitioner has been hindered for his absconding.

¶29

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Accordingly, the pre-arrest bail application stands rejected for the third time.

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

Return the case diary.

¶33

This disposes of the anticipatory bail application.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Md. Mujakkir Hussain Laskar v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Mujakkir Hussain Laskar 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

MD Azmal Hoque Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amin Nurul Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Sanjib Rabha Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Md. Sabir Nishat Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sukur Ali Vs the State of Assam

MD Saddam Hussein Vs the State of Assam