Dismissed

Md. Fakrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC20 Jul 2022Bail Appln./565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court rejected a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in a Special NDPS case involving 450 kg of ganja. The court held that since the case is in the evidence stage as the prime accused and granting bail might hamper a fair trial despite counsel relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to file a fresh bail application before the learned trial court for consideration at an appropriate stage.

Md. Fakrul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010048512022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./565/2022

¶5

MD. FAKRUL ISLAM S/O LATE MANUHOR ALI R/O VILL- BORHAWAR P.S. MURAJHAR, DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K D SARMA

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 20.07.2022

¶13

Heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

¶14

By this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Md. Fakrul Islam has prayed for granting bail in connection with Murajhar P.S. Case No. 90/2012 ( Special NDPS Case No.30 (H)/2021 ) under Section 22 ( c) of NDPS Act.

¶15

The scanned copy of the case record is placed before the Court.

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

Mr. NJ Dutta, learned counsel for the accused petitioner, submits that the accused has been languishing in jail since 06.08.2021, based on the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 161 CrPC, which has no evidentiary value. Mr. Dutta further submits that after framing charges under Section 22 ( C)of the NDPS Act read with Section 34 of the IPC, the learned trial court has examined 01 (one) witness, who has not implicated the accused. Therefore, Mr. Dutta relying on the judgments rendered in the cases of 1. Ghulam Modh. Bhat –vs- NCB , 2. Yash Jayeshbhai Champaklal Shah –vsState of Gujarat, 3. Vikrant Singh & Ors –vs- State of Punjab, 4. Rajveer Singh –vsUnion of India and 5. Union of India –vs- Rattan Mallik allia Habul reported in (2009) 2 SCC 624 has submitted to release the accused on bail subject to any condition.

¶18

Per contra , Mr. BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the accused is named in the FIR and the case diary reveals that the present accused entrusted 450 kg of ganja contained in 37 number of packets to the co-accused driver and handyman for transportation, which they accordingly were transporting by the seized vehicle bearing registration NL 01A 2892 ( Truck) from Debasthan to Lanka. As the case is in evidence stage, Mr. Gogoi submits, grant of bail to the accused petitioner, who is the kingpin in the case, would totally jeopardise a fair and speedy trial of the case.

¶19

The case relates to recovery and seizure of 450 kg of ganja contained in 37 number of packets while carried in a truck.

¶20

I have given due consideration to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and perused records as well as the judgments rendered by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner.

¶21

A perusal of the case record along with the case diary, it is revealed that the present accused petitioner is the prime accused in the case, prima facie with the aid of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The case involves commission of offence in respect of huge commercial quantity of ganja (cannabis). The learned trial court surprisingly framed charge under Section 22 ( C) of the NDPS Act only vide order, dated 21.01.2022. Thereafter, the learned court has examined only 01 (one) prosecution witness. Therefore, without examination of the remaining cited material witnesses, it is too early to infer a presumption that the accused petitioner was absolutely innocent, applying the principles laid in the above cited judgments by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner and accordingly in the opinion of this court, granting him of bail may likely to hamper a smooth and fair trial of the case.

¶22

For the above stated reasons, the bail application stands rejected.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

However, the accused petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh bail application before the learned trial court and if such bail application is filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of at an appropriate stage of trial of the case in accordance with law. The bail application stands disposed of.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

Comparing Assistant

Md. Fakrul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Fakrul Islam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Debnath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Subodh Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Ratna Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Dhiraj Kumar Vs the State of Assam

Md. Mokbul Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Biswanath Das and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam