Disposed

Fatima Begum v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC2 Sept 2025Bail Appln./2872/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by a woman accused under Sections 21(b)/29 NDPS Act after recovery of 101.43 grams of suspected heroin from her house. Trial had not commenced due to the absconding co-accused husband. Considering 100 days of detention and her readiness to cooperate, the High Court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail of Rs.30,000 with one like surety, subject to conditions including cooperation in trial and appearance as directed.

Fatima Begum Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010188162025

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./2872/2025

¶5

FATIMA BEGUM WIFE OF HOBIBUR RAHMAN, R/O LAILAPUR FOREST VILLAGE, P.O.A ND P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM PIN-788114

¶6

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M R SODIAL, MS B H SHIRIN,MS S Z HAYAT

¶8

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : 03.09.2025

¶12

1. Heard Mr. M. R. Sodial, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

¶13

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Fatima Begum, who is detained behind the bars since 26.05.2025 (for last 100 days) in connection with NDPS Case No. 55/2025 corresponding to Dholai

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

P.S. Case No. 78/2025 presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Cachar.

¶16

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of an FIR lodged on 26.05.2025 by one Shyamalee Gogoi, before the Officer-in-charge of Dholai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during search of the house of the petitioner 101.43 grams of suspected heroin was recovered therefrom, an investigation was initiated and ultimately on completion of the investigation, chargesheet was laid against the petitioner and her husband under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

¶17

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the seized contraband was recovered from the premise of the petitioner’s house, however, she is not involved in the alleged offence. He submits that the husband of the petitioner against whom also charge-sheet has been laid and who is absconding might be involved in the alleged offence.

¶18

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 100 days, however, due to the absence of the co-accused, the trial is yet to commence and charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner. He submits that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of intermediate quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of NDPS Act is not applicable in this case. He also submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Lailapur Forest Village under the jurisdiction of Dholai Police Station and she is ready to co-operate in the investigation. He also submits that the petitioner is a mother of three minor children.

¶19

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the charge-sheet has been laid also against the petitioner along with her husband and there are sufficient materials

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

against the petitioner in the records.

¶22

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record.

¶23

8. In this case, apparently the trial is yet to commence due to the fact that the husband of the petitioner is absconding, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 100 days and she is ready to cooperate in the trial, her custodial detention does not appear to be necessary if she cooperates in the trial.

¶24

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

¶25

i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 55/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Cachar;

¶26

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

¶27

iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;

¶28

iv. That the petitioner shall provide her contact details including photocopies of her Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;

¶29

v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit her leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and

¶32

vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶33

10. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Fatima Begum v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fatima Begum v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Salatur Rahaman Mayangmayum and Anr. Vs the Ncb

Virchand Ray Alias Birchandra Ray Alias Virchandra Ray Vs the Union of India

Sapijul Rahman Alias Shapijul Hoque and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jahangir Alom Vs the State of Assam

Shokhohen Haokhopao Singsit @ Shokhohen Haokhopao and Anr. Vs the Union of India

MD Abidur Rahman Vs the State of Assam