Allowed

Bikram Das v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC4 Feb 2022Bail Appln./146/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under CrPC 439 concerning a case under the NDPS Act, the Gauhati High Court granted bail to the accused-petitioner. The court held that further detention was not essential for investigation after reviewing the case diary and noting the petitioner's 37 days of custody.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000 with a suitable surety subject to standard conditions.

Bikram Das Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010010962022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./146/2022

¶5

BIKRAM DAS S/O SRI DHANANJAY DAS R/O VILL- PIJUPARA P.S. NAGARBERA DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

04-02-2022

¶12

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference due to Covid19 pandemic.

¶13

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Dr. Bikram Das , in connection with Juria Police Station Case No. 788 of 2021 , registered under Sections 21(a)/29 of the NDPS Act .

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶16

The case diary produced has been perused.

¶17

On perusal of the case diary it is found that three guests came to the official quarter of the present petitioner, had brought the contraband seized in connection with this case. The petitioner did not bring the said seized contraband nor was he involved in dealing with the contraband as suggested by the materials in the case diary.

¶18

On the other hand, the accused-petitioner has been in custody for 37 days as on date with effect from the date of his arrest.

¶19

Considering the materials in the case diary as well as the length of detention of the accused-petitioner in custody this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the petitioner is not essential in the interest of investigation of this case. That being so, the petitioner is granted bail.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶27

Return the case diary.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Bikram Das v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikram Das 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

Abbul Khair Ilias Noshim Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Aftab Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Ramjan Ali Vs the State of Assam

Ikramul Hussain and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Saddam Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Dhiraj Deka Vs the State of Assam and Anr.