Dismissed

Jiten Bishwas and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC11 Feb 2022Bail Appln./63/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Gauhati High Court rejected bail for three accused-petitioners charged under the NDPS Act. Despite arguments that the quantity of seized heroin was intermediate, the Court held that the FSL report confirmed positive testing and investigation was nearly complete, rendering it not a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; case disposed of; case diary returned.

Jiten Bishwas and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010004432022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./63/2022

¶5

JITEN BISHWAS AND 2 ORS

¶6

S/O LATE ROSOMOY BISHWAS, R/O VILL-HARMOTI, P.S.-LALUK, DISTLAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

2: ENAMUL HOQUE S/O LATE ALI SHAH R/O VILL- NO. 3 BARUAJHAR P.S.-DALGAON, DIST-DARRANG, ASSAM

¶8

3: UTTAM NATH S/O UNKNOWN R/O VILL- JOYSIDDHI NIJORAPAR ITAKHOLA, P.S.-SOOTEA DIST- BISWANATH, ASSAM

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G PHUKAN

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HITESH KUMAR SARMA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

11-02-2022

¶16

The Court proceedings have been conducted through Video-Conference due to Covid-19 pandemic.

¶17

Page No.# 2/2

¶18

This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the accused-petitioners, namely, 1. Jiten Bishwas, 2. Enamul Hoque and 3. Uttam Nath , in connection with Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case No. 460 of 2021 , (arising out of Spl. (NDPS) Case No. 15/2021), registered under Sections

¶19

21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶20

Heard Mr. G. Phukan, learned counsel representing the petitioners and Mr. B.B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State.

¶21

Perused the case diary produced has been perused.

¶22

The accused-petitioners has been in custody for 55 days as on date.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 203 grams of suspected heroin was seized in connection with this case, therefore, the case ought to have been registered under Section 21 (B) of the NDPS Act, the contraband seized being intermediate quantity.

¶24

Whatever it may be, even if it is supposed to be an intermediate quantity yet 60 days is the statutorily prescribed period for completion of investigation.

¶25

On the other hand, the case diary reveals that the FSL report has been collected which shows that the contraband seized was tested positive for narcotic drugs. The investigation is almost complete.

¶26

That being so, this is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the accused-petitioners is rejected .

¶27

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

Return the case diary.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Jiten Bishwas and 2 Ors. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiten Bishwas and 2 Ors. 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. Rubul Ali Vs the State of Assam

Tinku Baruah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Mir Alam Shahid Vs the State of Assam

Kanak Das Vs the State of Assam

Jyoti Prasad Baruah Vs the State of Assam

Pulak Roy Vs the State of Assam