Abdul Haque @ Hoque and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010057322025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:5392

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./852/2025

¶6

ABDUL HAQUE @ HOQUE AND ANR S/O LATE JABBAR ALI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KAKALBANGI, JOGIGAON, P.S. DALGAON, SUB-DIV. MANGALDOI, PIN-784116, DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM

¶7

2: SOFIKUL ISLAM @ SAFIQUL ISHLAM S/O MD. SOMU ALI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF DIMATOLA BANDIKHANA DHUBRI P.S. FAKIRGANJ

¶8

BOTH ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING NEAR NO 4 RAILWAY GATE FANCY BAZAR P.S. FANCY BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SARMA, MS M KAKOTY,MS R SAHIN,MS. B BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶13

ORDER

¶14

02.05.2025

¶15

Heard Ms. R. Sahin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶16

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting regular bail to the petitioners, i.e. Abdul Haque @ Hoque and Sofikul Islam @ Safiqul Ishlam, who have been arrested on 04.03.2025 in connection with Panbazar P.S Case No. 83/2025 registered under Section 303(2) of BNSS read with Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

¶17

3. The facts of the case is that the petitioners were arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 04.03.2025, on the basis of a suo moto FIR lodged by WSI Indumoni Gogoi, Panbazar Police Station alleging inter alia that on 04.03.2025 at about 7:57 p.m., an information was received at Panbazar P.S. from some reliable sources that some drugs paddler is selling and distributing drugs at 4 No. Railway Gate, Fancy Bazar area and its nearby areas. The informant alongwith SI(P) Jitul Das, SI(P) Debojit Baishnab and ERSS-34 of Panbazar P.S. arrived at 8:20. p.m. and noticed two persons were sitting in the tarpaulin shed made temporary shelter in a suspicious manner and looking around for some customers. The informant and the other person introduced themselves and apprehended the above mentioned petitioners. The informant briefed the petitioners for either search by the Magistrate or conduction of personal search, the petitioners allowed for personal search at the spot and both the petitioners were personally searched by the informant and video

¶18

Page No.# 3/5

¶19

graphed. During bodily search of petitioner No. 1, 8 Nos of identical plastic vials filled with suspected heroin kept in small purse has been recovered from his possession and from the temporary tarpaulin made shelter house of petitioner No. 2, 140 Nos. of empty plastic vials used to keep drugs, one Redmi mobile phone suspected to be stolen, some silver ornaments and one charging machine of e-rickshaw has been found and seized. While asking about the ownership of the articles, the petitioner No. 2 could not give answers. During weighed of 8 Nos of Plastic vials, the weight found 10.66 grams and seized in presence of the witnesses. It is found that the seized plastic vials are filled with suspected heroin powder, which is a psychotropic substance. And, the suspects possessed the contraband and engaged in selling. Thereafter the petitioners were arrested on 04.03.2025 and since then, they were lying in custody.

¶20

4. Ms. R. Sahin, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the waste pickers, they collects the waste products in the nearby areas of Fancy Bazar and earns their livelihood by selling those waste products and on the day before the incident while collecting scraps and waste materials by them, they found the alleged contravened articles and without knowing the fact as what the products were, they picked up and kept it in their tarpaulin shed from where the investigating authority, suddenly on the next date, came and recovered it. She further submits that the quantity of the alleged seized contraband articles are of intermediate quantity. She further submits that the petitioners have been languishing in the custody for the last 59 days and the mandatory period is going to be expired tomorrow.

¶21

5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is apparent from the records available on record that the alleged articles have been seized from the possession of the petitioners. He further submits that

¶22

Page No.# 4/5

¶23

though the FSL report has been called for repeatedly by this Court, however, the same is still not made available to him.

¶24

6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶25

7. It appears that the petitioners have been in custody for the last 59 days and their statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. It further appears that the seized quantity of the contraband articles is about 10.66 grams. It further appears that the mandatory period is going to be expired tomorrow. It further appears that the petitioners have no criminal background.

¶26

8. Considering the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially that the mandatory period is going to be expired tomorrow and that the quantity seized is of intermediate quantity, this Court is of the considered view that further detention of the petitioners are not necessary for the on-going investigation.

¶27

9. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioners named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforementioned case on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each, with one government and one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Court under the conditions: -

¶28

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional Court under the NDPS Act, without prior written permission from him;

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

(b) shall deposit their Passport/visa, etc if any, in the Court of the learned jurisdictional Court;

¶31

(c) shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶32

(d) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

¶33

(e) shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer once in a week until the entire investigation of the case is completed and as and when called by the Investigating Police Officer for the purpose of investigation of the case.

¶34

10. It is needless to be clarified that the breach of any of the above conditions shall render cancellation bail, in accordance with law.

¶35

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

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Haque @ Hoque and Anr. v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Haque @ Hoque and Anr. 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

Smt. Renuka Thakuria Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Golap Hussain Vs the State of Assam

On the Death of Tasadduk Hussain, and Others Vs on the Death of Nazimul Islam

Kiyeka Ayemi Vs the State of Assam

Bhargav Deka Vs the State of Assam

Azibur Rahman Alias Azizi @ Ajibur Vs the State of Assam