Dismissed¶34

Habib Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC15 Sept 2025Bail Appln./2148/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refused; NDPS Act; rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act; Section 483 BNSS 2023 bail application; parity with co-accused on bail; bail-stage assessment confined to charge-sheet/prima facie, no mini-trial; Yaba tablets recovery (7.595 kgs + 1.105 kgs, 24.155 kgs); surrender before Trial Court; Gauhati High Court; Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund; 16.09.2025; Bail Appln./2148/2025; Habib Ahmed v. State of Assam; relies on The State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan (2025 SCC Online SC 1702); document id 2025:GAU-AS:12731.

What did the court decide?

At this juncture (the bail stage), evidence is not taken into consideration; the culmination of the offence into the charge-sheet is taken into consideration, and the charge-sheet has been laid in connection with a heinous offence when sufficient grounds were found against the petitioner. ¶32

Habib Ahmed Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a charge-sheeted accused in Special (NDPS) Case No. 122/2021 (Nilambazar Police Station Case No. 432/2021, Sections 22(C)/25/29 NDPS Act), is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the plea of parity (7 of 8 accused enlarged on bail), his surrender and conduct, and the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶18

Court's answer

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is not entitled to bail; the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act fetter the bail application.

¶33

Key takeaways

In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition stands rejected at this stage.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.), order dated 16.09.2025 in Bail Appln./2148/2025: Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by Habib Ahmed, charge-sheeted accused in Special (NDPS) Case No. 122/2021 arising out of Nilambazar Police Station Case No. 432/2021 under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, pending before the Addl. Sessions Judge, rejected. Counsel pleaded parity (7 of 8 accused on bail), the petitioner's surrender in compliance with this Court's order, non-recovery of the contraband from his possession and absence of any police search against him; the Additional Public Prosecutor objected, describing the petitioner as prime accused and mastermind of transportation of the recovered Yaba tablets (7.595 kgs + 1.105 kgs and 24.155 kgs), and relied on The State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan etc, 2025 SCC Online SC 1702. The Court held that at the bail stage evidence is not examined and the culmination of the offence into the charge-sheet is considered; the charge-sheet having been laid in a heinous offence with sufficient grounds found against the petitioner, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act fetter the application; the petition stands rejected at this stage and the bail application stands disposed of.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010144472025

2025:GAU-AS:12731

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2148/2025

¶6

HABIB AHMED S/O- NOIMUL HOQUE. R/O-VILL.- KANAKPUR. P.O. AND P.S.- NILAMBAZAR. DIST.- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN,MS G TALUKDAR

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶12

ORDER

¶13

16.09.2025

¶14

Heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Choudhury for the petitioner Habib Ahmed who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 122/2021 arising out of

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

Nilambazar Police Station Case No. 432/2021 under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act pending at the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge.

¶17

Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

¶18

It is submitted that in compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioner surrendered before the Trial Court, but the petitioner was forwarded to custody. The petitioner has prayed for bail on the grounds of parity as 7 out of 8 accused are enlarged on bail. It is submitted that in their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, 6 witnesses have not at all implicated the petitioner, but charges were framed. It is further submitted that the contraband was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but was recovered from the possession of Samsul Noor and Abdul Basit in their house. The petitioner has prayed before this court to take into consideration his conduct.

¶19

It is submitted that the petitioner could have escaped, but he, in compliance of the order of his court, surrendered before the Trial Court and now he is being incarcerated. He has further submitted that the police did not conduct any search against the petitioner during the investigation.

¶20

On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that 7.595 kgs of Yaba tablets + 1.105 kgs of Yaba tablets as well as 24.155 kgs of Yaba tablets were recovered in connection with this case.The petitioner is a prime accused and he is the mastermind of transportation of the entire contraband.

¶21

During the stage of investigation, the petitioner's role has come to light and finally charge-sheet was submitted against him. Initially, the witnesses did not adduced evidence against him, but during the investigation, it was uncovered

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

that the petitioner is deeply involved in transportation of contraband and he is the kingpin.

¶24

The grounds of parity cannot be considered in this case as the other accused persons were enlarged on bail.

¶25

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan etc, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702, wherein it has been observed that:-

¶26

“ 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was reiterated that Article

¶27

22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.

¶28

20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr. P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.2.1. It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that:

¶29

"The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail…. non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order...

¶30

22.1.1. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, this Court held that "the nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail the more heinous the crime, the greater the chance of refusal of bail, though the exercise of judicial discretion in such matters cannot be exhaustively defined. “

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

Reverting back to this case, it is held in this instant case too, at this juncture, evidence is not taken into consideration. The culmination of the offence into charge-sheet is taken into consideration. Charge-sheet has been laid in connection with a heinous offence when sufficient grounds were found against the petitioner.

¶33

At this juncture, it appears that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act fetters the bail application.

¶34

In view of my foregoing discussions, petition stands rejected at this stage.

¶35

In terms of the above observation, bail application stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Habib Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habib Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mofizur Rahman Vs the State of Assam

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pankaj Bhuyan and 5 Ors.

Monsura Khatun and Anr. Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Smt. Manjula Das Vs Bibekananda Das

Mr Babul Biswas Vs the State of Assam

Babul Biswas Vs the State of Assam