Firoz Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Firoz Ahmed in connection with

¶19

Page No.# 2/5

¶20

Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gouripur P.S. Case No. 160/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶21

3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same.

¶22

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 14.06.2024 and as on today, he is in custody for 690 days. There was no recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that from the date of passing of the order dated 10.03.2026 in BA No. 487/2026 of the co-accused, there is no such progress in the trial of the case and the last witness was examined on 02.09.2025 and thereafter, no witness could be examined by the prosecution.

¶23

5. He further submitted that at present the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri wherein the case is pending is lying vacant and hence chances of examination of the other witnesses within a short period is also less in the present case. Accordingly, he submitted that considering the long incarceration of the present petitioner, his bail prayer may be considered. He further submitted that one of the co-accused has already been released on bail vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in BA No. 487/2026 and the case of the present petitioner is also on the same footing and hence, on the ground of parity also the petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶24

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel further submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 47 and 48 BNSS while issuing notice to the present petitioner as well as his relatives, but at present he is not pressing that and he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner only considering his long incarceration.

¶25

Page No.# 3/5

¶26

7. Mr. Das, learned APP submitted that the present petitioner is involved in the alleged offence and the contraband were also recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submitted that case is of commercial quantity and hence, rigor of Section 37 will also follow and from the materials available in the case record and statement made by the witnesses, it cannot be held that the petitioner was not guilty of the said offence, nor there can be any reasonable ground to belief that he will not commit the offence, if he is enlarged on bail, which is required as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act to consider a bail application in case of commercial quantity.

¶27

8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and the case diary along with the annexures filed along with this petition.

¶28

9. It is seen that the alleged recovery of the contraband was made from the conscious possession of the petitioner along with another. At the same time, it is also a fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last 690 days and only two witnesses could be examined by prosecution till date. While entertaining a bail application for the co-accused also it is seen that two witnesses were examined on the date of order, i.e., on 10.03.2026 and inspite of lapse of almost two months, there is no progress in the trial and the last witness was stated to be examined on 02.09.2025. So considering all these aspects it can be held that the probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected at this stage.

¶29

10. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra) , the Apex Court has granted bail to the accused with a view that “the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.”

¶32

11. In the case of Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. the State of West Bengal [Criminal Appeal No(s). 245/2020 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8823/20190] also, the bail was granted by the Apex Court considering the long period of incarceration and also considering the fact that out of 10 (ten) numbers of witnesses, only 4 (four) witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

¶33

12. Again, in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) , considering the period of detention of 1 year 7 months, the bail was granted considering that the prosecution could examine only one witness and also considering that the case is at the preliminary stage of trial.

¶34

13. In the instant case also it is seen that the accused petitioner is already in incarceration for a long period and probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period also cannot be expected. So without going into the other detail merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be released on bail considering his prolonged incarceration, which otherwise violates the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶35

14. Further considering the case of the present petitioner on the same footing with the co-accused, who was aired been granted bail on the point of long incarceration, this Court is of the opinion that the ground of parity can be applied in the present case and accordingly, I find it justified to allow the present petitioner to go on bail.

¶36

15. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Firoz Ahmed , be released on bail in connection with Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gouripur P.S. Case No. 160/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, with 2 (two)

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

sureties of like amount, one surety has to be a government servant to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri , subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge, Dhubri, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court;

¶40

(ii) that the petitioner 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶41

(iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before learned Special Judge, Dhubri; and

¶42

(iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, without prior permission.

¶43

16. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Firoz Ahmed v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Ahmed 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulbanu Bibi Vs the State of Assam

Abdul Haque Alias Abdullah and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

The State of Assam Vs Farjul Islam

Ankur Jyoti Sharma alias Ankur Jyoti Sarma Vs the State of Assam

Ankur Sharma Vs the State of Assam

Sri Rishi Baruah Vs the State of Assam