Dismissed¶28

Mahidul Islam v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC8 Sept 2025I.A.(Crl.)/692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of conviction and sentence; Section 389 CrPC; NDPS Act Section 20(b)/(ii)(c); ganja/cannabis recovery from Santro car during Naka checking; seizure witnesses PW-2 to PW-5; signature on blank paper; Malakhana Register pagination; delay in authorization letter; Sections 42 and 43 NDPS Act; applicant in custody since 19.01.2023; Special Judge (Addl.) Dhubri; Special Case No. 115/2024; bail pending appeal refused; I.A.(Crl.)/692/2024; Gauhati High Court; Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.

What did the court decide?

While disposing of a petition for bail and suspension of sentence the Court is hesitant to set out the merits of the case; considering all aspects, it is reluctant to grant bail or to pass an order of suspension of the operation of the impugned Judgment and Order. ¶27

Mahidul Islam Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010102792024

undefined

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

¶5

I.A.(Crl.)/692/2024

¶6

MAHIDUL ISLAM S/O NASIR MIAH SARKAR R/O MAHARANI HIRAPUR P.S.- RADHA KISHORPUR DIST.- GOMATI STATE- TRIPURA.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY P.P. ASSAM

¶9

-----------Advocate for : M M RAHMAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 09.09.2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel Mr. M.Rahman for t he applicant Mahidul Islam who has filed this interlocutory application under Section 389 of the CrPC for suspension of order of conviction and sentence vide order dated 26.02.2024 in

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

connection with Special Case No. 115/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Addl.), Dhubri whereby the applicant was convicted under Section 20(b)/(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 (Ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, i/d to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another 1 (One) year in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶16

It is submitted that the applicant is behind bars for three years, which is almost half the minimum of the sentence under the aforementioned sections of law. It is submitted that the Court did not hear any defense witnesses like the wife, the parents of the accused, the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the ganja. Neither the investigating officer nor the learned trial court found out the actual facts of the case. The applicant is a professional driver of a Dumper and works under his master. The applicant is innocent as on the relevant day, two partners namely Yusuf Dev Barman and Dharman Dev Barman of Tripura called him as well as the other accused persons. The applicant was requested by them to drive two vehicles for a consideration of Rs. 5000/- per vehicle.

¶17

It is further contented that the police recorded the statements of the driver of the recovery van and two mechanical boys, but all of them stated that cannabis was recovered from the vehicle bearing registration no. AS23C-6256 but the applicant was the driver of the vehicle bearing registration no. AS23C4199.

¶18

It is further submitted that the statements of the seizure witnesses clearly reveals that the seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The police took signature of PW-2 on a blank piece of paper. PW-2 also could not recall the number of the vehicle carrying the ganja. His evidence clearly depicts that the seizure list was not read over to him and he could not mention the

¶19

Page No.# 3/4

¶20

amount of the contraband seized in connection with the case. The other contradiction is that no pagination is evident in the Malakhana Register and the storage of ganja in safe custody has been disputed. It is further submitted that there are contradictions evident in the evidence of PW-1 vis-a-vis the informant and the I.O. of this case. It is further contended that the authorization letter was received on the following day, which is illegal. It is further submitted that there is every possibility that the applicant may be acquitted and thereby the applicant is entitled to bail and sentence may be suspended.

¶21

Per-contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. Borthakur has submitted that the petitioner has pre-maturedly laid stress on the violation of provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act. Seven witnesses were examined in this case and PW-2 to PW-5 are seizure witnesses. It is submitted that the evidence of seizure witnesses i.e PWs-2, 3, 4 and 5 clearly reveals that they were present when the two vehicles collided with each other at the time of Naka checking and ganja packets were found in the Santro and another vehicle was being occupied by the applicant.

¶22

PW-2 has categorically stated that he could identify the accused person. When he was boarding a passenger bus, he heard a huge “thud” and saw two Santro cars colliding with the police vehicle. He also saw ganja inside the dashboard and the headlight of the Santro vehicles and his signature was taken on a piece of paper.

¶23

I have considered the submissions at the bar and the evidence projected by the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

¶24

At this juncture, it is not necessary to consider the intricacies and the merits of the case. It is true that the applicant has been behind bars since the

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

date of his arrest in connection with the case i.e. on 19.01.2023.

¶27

I have also scrutinized the reasons recorded by the learned trial court. At this stage, while disposing of a petition for bail and for suspension of sentence, this court is hesitant to put forth the merits of this case. However, considering all aspects, this Court is reluctant to grant bail and pass an order of suspension of the operation of the Judgment and Order impugned by the applicant.

¶28

10. In view of the foregoing discussions, the interlocutory application under section 389 CrPC stands rejected at this stage.

¶29

11. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Mahidul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahidul Islam v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Debasish Dey and 2 Ors. Vs Kajal Kanti Dey and 2 Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Choudhury Vs Pappu Sah and 5 Ors.

Kushal Kumar Das Vs Dulal Baruah and Anr.

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Legal Representative of Smti Premi Demta and Anr. Vs Legal Representative of Late Ramji Shah

Ajit Saikia Vs Smti. Anjumoni Saikia