Dismissed¶31

Smti Rehena Begum v. The State of Ap

Gauhati HC2 Jul 2025BA/72/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench; BA/72/2025; bail application rejected; Section 483 BNSS; NDPS Act 1985 Section 21(b)/29; Naharlagun PS Case No. 62/2025; heroin recovery 30.3 grams and 11.4 grams; co-accused Shariful Islam; Article 22(1) Constitution grounds of arrest; Section 52 NDPS Act; 161 statement admission; intermediate quantity argument; arrest memo FIR timing discrepancy; 57 days versus 60 days mandatory period; Public Prosecutor T Ete; Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan; order dated 03.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Perusal of the Case Diary showed that none of the witnesses whose statements were recorded stated that the petitioner was not involved in the offence or that the contrabands were not recovered from his pocket. ¶27

Smti Rehena Begum Vs The State of Ap — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned in Naharlagun PS Case No. 62/2025 under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, should be granted bail through this application under Section 483 of the BNSS. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's own statement recorded under Section 161 before the police admits that he is involved in selling contrabands.

¶27

Key takeaways

The mandatory grounds of arrest required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 52 of the NDPS Act had been served upon the petitioner.ratio¶30
On the facts of the case as aforesaid, the Court declined to release the petitioner on bail and rejected the bail petition.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail application BA/72/2025 (Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench) by Smti Rehena Begum under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking bail in Naharlagun PS Case No. 62/2025 registered under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Contraband weighing 30.3 grams and 11.4 grams of heroin (including plastic pouches) was allegedly recovered from the petitioner during a police operation that followed the apprehension of co-accused Shariful Islam. Counsel argued intermediate quantity, a discrepancy in arrest timing between the arrest memo and the FIR, 57 days spent in jail against the 60-day mandatory period, and an ailing mother; the Public Prosecutor maintained NDPS procedures were adhered to. Perusing the Case Diary, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Shamima Jahan found no witness disclaiming the petitioner's involvement, the petitioner's own 161 statement admitting sale of contrabands, and the mandatory grounds of arrest (Article 22(1) of the Constitution; Section 52 NDPS Act) duly served. By order dated 03.07.2025 the bail petition was rejected.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040009162025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : BA/72/2025

¶5

Smti Rehena Begum

¶6

Wife of Shri Shaik Farid, permanent resident of Village No.1 Ahmedpur, PO Bangalmara, PS Bipuria, Lakhimpur District, Assam.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP represented by the PP of AP

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : Tailang Laji,

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,

¶11

B E F O R E

¶12

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

03.07.2025

¶15

Heard Mr. M Kamcham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T Ete,

¶16

learned Public Prosecutor. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS

¶17

filed by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Naharlagun PS Case

¶18

No. 62/2025 under Section 21(B)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶19

Page No.# 2/4

¶20

The fact of the present case is that on a reliable information that a drug peddler is in possession of suspected contraband and are selling them to the addicted/persons, the police personnel, after entering the contents in the general diary, proceeded to the concerned place after informing the Senior Officer and the team apprehended one Shariful Islam from whom contrabands were recovered and on interrogation of Said Shariful Islam, it was found out that there are more peddlers who were coming to another place in Naharlagun for selling drugs. The police as such, left to the said place and intercepted two drug peddlers who however attempted to flee but the police personnel somehow apprehended them. It is the petitioner who was apprehended by the police and on search being made contrabands were recovered from him which weighed 30.3 grams and 11.4 grams of heroin including the plastic pouches from his pockets. Thereafter, the police personnel arrested the petitioner with the others and lodged the ejahar and registered the case under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the amount of the contraband recovered from the petitioner was intermediate in quantity and that the time of arrest was shown differently in his arrest memo and in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioner has an ailing mother who is

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

to be looked after. The learned counsel had submitted that the petitioner has

¶24

been inside for 57 days in jail and since the mandatory period is 60 days he may be released on bail

¶25

Mr. T Ete, learned Public Prosecutor however submits that all the procedures required to be followed under the NDPS Act were adhered to by the police personnel and there was no violation of any other provision mentioned in the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, he submits that he was caught red handed with the contrabands in his pocket. He also submits that the difference in the timing of arrest in the arrest memo and the FIR will not have any consequences in the case.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the Case Diary.

¶27

It is noticed from the Case Diary that the police has recorded the statements of the witnesses alongwith the statements of the petitioner. None of the witnesses have stated that the petitioner was not involved with the offence or that the contrabands were not recovered from his pocket. The petitioner himself has also submitted in his 161 statements before the police that he is involved in selling contrabands. In the FIR it is writ large that the petitioner tried

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

to flee when the police reached the place on the information given by the co-

¶30

accused Mr. Shariful Islam. The mandatory grounds of arrest under as required Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 52 of the NDPS Act is also been served upon the petitioner.

¶31

Therefore, in the facts of the aforesaid case, this Court is constrained not to release the petitioner on bail and bail petition is as such rejected.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Smti Rehena Begum v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Rehena Begum v. The State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bamang Tamin and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Smti Sonika Kabak and Anr. Vs The State of Ap

Jumken Kamdak and Anr. Vs Redo Doji

Rajibur Islam Vs The State of Ap

Techi Anil Vs The State of Ap

Smti Taram Ania Dui Vs The State of Ap