MD Roijuddin @ Rohiz Uddin Vs the State of Assam

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 22.03.2025 in connection with Laluk P. S. Case No. 68/2025, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii) (B)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶15

3. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Goswami, that the Case Diary, as called for, has not yet been received, although a signal was sent to the Investigating Officer for furnishing the same.

¶16

4. In this regard, Mr. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the present petitioner is innocent, however, there is an allegation regarding the recovery of 1.980 kg of ganja from his possession. He has been in custody for the last 45 days, and therefore, considering the length of detention, he may be enlarged on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the IO in the further investigation of the case, if granted the privilege of bail.

¶17

5. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that from the contents of the FIR and the forwarding report, there is sufficient material implicating the accused/petitioner. The recovery was also made from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner. Accordingly, at this stage, he insists on calling for the Case Diary.

¶18

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the annexures attached to the petition. Without going into the merits of the

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

case and considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, i.e., 45 days, I am of the view that further custodial detention of the accused/petitioner does not appear to be necessary in this case. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is allowed to go on bail.

¶21

7. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Roijuddin @ Rohiz Uddin , be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii) that the petitioner 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; and

¶24

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, without prior permission.

¶25

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

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

MD Roijuddin @ Rohiz Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Roijuddin @ Rohiz Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Monaf Vs the State of Assam

MD Noor Mohammad Vs the State of Assam

Habibur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Rasmil Ali @ Babuli Ali Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

MD Rajikul Islam@ Rajikul Isalam Vs the State of Assam

Tanbir Yusuf Ahmed Vs the State of Assam