Dismissed

Gulenur Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC28 Apr 2024Bail Appln./1049/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court rejected a bail application filed by the applicant in a Special Judge court case registered under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. Despite submissions regarding no recovery from the petitioner and length of detention, the court held that bail was not warranted at the stage where charge-sheet was submitted but charge had not yet been framed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected.

Gulenur Islam Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010073592024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./1049/2024

¶5

GULENUR ISLAM S/O MAFIZUDDIN AHMED, VILL.- MOLLAPARA, P.S.- MONGALDOI, DIST.- DARRANG, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE P.P., ASSAM.

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 29.04.2024

¶13

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

This is an application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. , seeking bail by the

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

petitioner, namely, Gulenur Islam, in connection with Special (N) Case No. 10/2024 (arising out of Sipajhar P.S. Case No. 323/2023) registered under Section 22(C) of NDPS Act, pending in the court of Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai.

¶17

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also submitted that a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. has been received by the petitioner with a direction to appear before the investigating officer and subsequently he was arrested. Though the FIR was lodged on 03.10.2023 but the petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2023. Charge-sheet has been submitted showing two persons as absconders as such, trial is not proceeding. As the petitioner is a local person, there is no chance of absconding. Considering the length of detention as well as the nature of the offence, bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶18

On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently objected to the prayer of the accused/petitioner by stating that the petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and there is sufficient incriminating materials found in the case record against the petitioner. It is also submitted that as per seizure list, commercial quantity of Yaba tablets were recovered from a vehicle in which the petitioner has been involved. Considering the nature of offence, bail may not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case record.

¶20

Page No.# 3/3

¶21

It appears from the record that charge-sheet has been submitted but charge has not yet been framed. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, prayer for bail is rejected.

¶22

The bail application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Gulenur Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulenur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar Jyoti Das and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Prem Devi Bothra and 3 Ors.

Mafizul Haque Vs the State of Assam

Raju Saikia Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Smt. Pahiti Das Vs Smti. Sunita Das

Priyangshu Gogoi Vs the State of Assam