Abul Hussain Vs the State of Assam

3. The FIR dated 25.05.2025 reveals that on a specific information that one bike was coming towards a particular area carrying huge number of narcotics, the Police Personnel arrived at the place of occurrence and during search, intercepted the said bike rider alongwith one pillion rider, who try to escape from the spot and that the Police Personnel intercepted them and found the pillion rider carrying a bag in his shoulder and on search being made, soap boxes containing suspected heroin were recovered from the said bag. It was stated in the FIR that the accused person namely, Johorul Hoque, who was the pillion rider was interrogated who named the present petitioner as a partner in dealing with the said illegal drugs and on the said information, the petitioner was arrested. It be stated here that the petitioner was the Constable by profession.

¶20

4. Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Johorul Hoque, who revealed the name of the petitioner was the driver of the petitioner at some point of time and the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case. He also submits that the statement of the co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and on the basis of the same, a person cannot be implicated. He also submits that the petitioner had become a victim of conspiracy by his colleague.

¶21

5. Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent on perusal of the case records submits that there are enough materials against the petitioner to the effect that the messages are retrieved from the cell phone of the petitioner, which shows that the petitioner was involved in the said business of dealing in drugs. He also submits that the co-accused had named

¶22

Page No.# 3/3

¶23

the petitioner in clear terms as a partner in the said drug business.

¶24

6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the records.

¶25

7. It is seen that the Police Personnel had arrested two of the accused persons namely, Johorul Hoque and Md. Joinul Hoque with the contrabands during the raid being made and it was Johorul Hoque, who named the petitioner. As such, the statement is of the co-accused. The messages retrieved from the cell phone of the petitioner are also not very clear as to whether it was about contraband.

¶26

8. As such, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/-, with 1 local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Sribhumi under the following conditions:-

¶27

The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶28

The petitioner will not leave his place of residence without the permission of the Investigating Officer mentioned above.

¶29

The petitioner will not influence the witnesses which are connected with the instant case.

¶30

9. Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Abul Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abul Hussain 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

Habibur Rahman and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Jiarat Hussain Alias J. Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Akbar Khan Vs the State of Assam

Kalinath Pegu and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Abul Hussain Alias Abdul Sheikh and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

MD Doulat Khan Vs the State of Assam and Anr.