Allowed

Rajibul Hoque v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2022Bail Appln./273/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 21(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The court granted bail considering the petitioner had been in custody for 50 days and the seized drugs were found in his pharmacy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with one suitable surety of the like amount to the Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Darrang, Mangaldoi.

Rajibul Hoque Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010020682022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./273/2022

¶6

RAJIBUL HOQUE S/O MD. CHADEK ALI R/O VILL- NO. 2 MAJOR CHUBA, UNDER SIPAJHAR POLICE STATION, IN THE DIST. OF DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN CODE-784145

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORA

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶11

B E F O R E

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶13

03-03-2022

¶14

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioner, namely, Rajibul Hoque , in connection with Sipajhar Police Station Case No.17/2022 , registered under Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act .

¶15

Heard Mr. P. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent State.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Case diary produced has been perused.

¶18

Mr. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cough syrup seized in connection with this case were found in the Pharmacy, under the name and style of M/s Rajib Medical Hall, owned by the present petitioner. The present petitioner has also furnished the licence to that effect and, after expiry of the licence, the challan depositing the necessary fees for renewal of the same has also been furnished.

¶19

The fact remains that it is an admitted position form the FIR itself that the cough syrup recovered in the instant case was from the Pharmacy of the accused petitioner. On the other hand, the accused petitioner has been in custody for 50 days as on date.

¶20

Considering the length of detention and the factum of recovery of cough syrups from the Pharmacy owned by the present petitioner, further custodial detention of the petitioner does not appears to be necessary for the purpose of further investigation of the case and, hence, the 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.20,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned jurisdictional Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Darrang, Mangaldoi.

¶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 jurisdictional

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Special Judge under the NDPS Act, Darrang, Mangaldoi , without prior written permission from him;

¶26

(b) shall not hamper with the investigation, or 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

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

¶29

Return the case diary.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Rajibul Hoque v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajibul Hoque 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

Swmaoshat Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Anamul Haque @ Anamul Haque Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Lokman Hakim and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Shahad Ali @ Sahad Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Md. Shahidul Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Rajib Ali @ Md. Rojib Ali Vs the State of Assam