Rukia Begum @ Rukiya Begum Vs the State of Assam

1. Heard Mr. S. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam.

¶15

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

filed by the petitioner, namely, Rukia Begum@Rukiya Begum, who is detained behind the bars since 26.05.2025 in connection with Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 161/2025, under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶18

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on the basis of an FIR lodged on 25.06.2025 a search operation was conducted in the house of one Alauddin Ahmed and during search operation suspected brown sugar weighing about 20.27 grams (with containers) was recovered therefrom and the present petitioner, who is the wife of the Alauddin Ahmed petitioner was apprehended.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR.

¶20

5. He submits that the said contraband which excluding the container weighs only about 1.42 grams was recovered from the backside of the house of the present petitioner.

¶21

6. He further submits that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case is a small quantity and thus, this case ought to have been registered under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985, in which case the offence would have become bailable.

¶22

7. I have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam, who also submits that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is 1.42 grams.

¶23

8. Considering the quantity of contraband seized as well as the period of detention undergone, further custodial detention of the

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

petitioner is not required in this case for fair completion of the investigation of Mukalmua P.S. Case No. 161/2025. Otherwise also, the fact reveals that this case ought to have been registered under Section 21(a) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the offence is as such a bailable offence.

¶26

9. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Nalbari with following conditions that:-

¶27

(i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court.

¶28

10. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

Rukia Begum @ Rukiya Begum v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rukia Begum @ Rukiya Begum 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

Hamedur Islam @ Hamidur Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Amanur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Imran Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Sri Rubul Bora Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sapat Rabha Alias Sapar Chandra Rabha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Ikbal Hussain Vs the State of Assam