Gulshan Ahmed v. the State of Assam
Case brief
What is this about?
In a third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving Nam-Con drugs, the Gauhati High Court refused bail after previous rejections, noting it could not record satisfaction under NDPS Act Section 37(1)(b)(ii) due to the large quantity of contraband recovered.
What did the court decide?
Bail application rejected. Prayer for bail stands rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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
GAHC010019272022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./263/2022
GULSHAN AHMED S/O LATE SAMSUL ALOM R/O VILL- WEST KANISHASHAIL P.O. KANISHAIL, PIN-788711 P.S. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM, GUWAHATI-781001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H RAJBARBHUIYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA
ORDER
04-03-2022
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under the NDPS Act.
Whether the court can record satisfaction regarding Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act in a third bail application.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
GULSHAN AHMED S/O LATE SAMSUL ALOM
- respondent
THE STATE OF ASSAM
Coram
HITESH KUMAR SARMA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Gauhati HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- Bail Appln./263/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court