Allowed

Mirajul Hoque v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2026Bail Appln./2483/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court granted bail to Mirajul Hoque, arrested under Sections 22(b)/27A of the NDPS Act for possession of 28.46 grams of Tramadol tablets. The court noted the accused had been in custody for 26 days, the investigation had made substantial progress, and the case diary materials were inadequate to establish complicity under Section 27A. The prosecution's objection based on a prior NDPS case was considered but did not outweigh the grounds for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Nalbari.

Mirajul Hoque Vs the State of Assam — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010184712026

2026:GAU-AS:13899

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

¶5

Case No. : Bail Appln./2483/2026

¶6

MIRAJUL HOQUE

¶7

S/O. KAMEJ ALI, R/O. BARNIBARI, P.S. MUKALMUA, DISTRICT NALBARI, ASSAM.

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR A HUSSAIN

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER

¶14

18.09.2026

¶15

Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

¶16

2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely, Mirajul Hoque, who has been languishing in jail hazot, in connection with the Mukalmua PS Case No. 132/2026 , under Section 22(b)/27A of the NDPS Act, for granting bail.

¶17

3. It is to be noted here that aforementioned case has been registered on

¶18

Page No.# 2/3

¶19

the basis of one FIR lodged by SI Sukumar Dev Choudhury, Mukalmua PS, on 22.08.2026.

¶20

3.1. The essence of allegation made in the FIR, dated 22.08.2026, is that acting on a tip-off a raid was conducted in the residential premise of the accused and recovered five strips containing thirty-nine Tramadol tablets and out of five strips, four strips contained eight tablets each and one strip contained seven tablets and weighing the same, with the packet, found to be 28.46 grams.

¶21

4. Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused was arrested on 22.08.2026 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 26 days. Mr. Chowdhury further submits that the contraband substances, which were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, are of intermediate quantity and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition.

¶22

5. Per-contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, by producing the case diary before this Court, vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the present accused was earlier involved in Mukalmua PS Case No. 197/2022, registered under Section 22(d) of the NPDS Act, which was charge sheeted, vide Charge Sheet No. 208/2022. Mr. Sarma further submits that the present accused person is a habitual offender and he will continue to commit such offence if he is enlarged on bail and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition.

¶23

6. In reply, Mr. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the present accused person is an addicted person, not a paddler.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶26

8. It appears that the accused was arrested on 22.08.2026 and since then, he has been languishing in jail hazot for last 26 days. Further, perusal of the case diary reveals that the IO has achieved substantial progress in the investigation and also from the materials collected so far in the case diary seems to be totally inadequate to show his complicity with the offence under Section 27A of the NDPS Act

¶27

9. Having considered the above facts and circumstances and also considering the period of detention and balancing the same with the nature and gravity of the offence alleged in the FIR, this Court is of the view that further custodial detention of the accused may not be warranted, in this case.

¶28

10. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- only, with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Nalbari , the accused be enlarged on bail.

¶29

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

¶30

12. The case diary be returned.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Mirajul Hoque v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirajul Hoque 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