Dilwar Hussain Vs the State of Assam

2. By this application, the petitioner, namely, Dilwar Hussain, has prayed for bail, in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 130/2025, registered under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, pending before the Court of the learned

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Special Judge, Sribhumi.

¶19

3. The case started with lodging of the FIR, dated 22.09.2025; in which, it was revealed that while conducting the naka checking duty, the Police persons stopped a vehicle and on checking the same, they found the driver and the present petitioner in the vehicle and on further search being made, they found the contrabands, which were kept inside the dashboard of the said vehicle and thereafter, the police arrested both the accused persons, on 22.09.2025 itself.

¶20

4. Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date and time of arrest of the petitioner has been reflected differently in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Forwarding Report.

¶21

4.1 Mr. H. R. Choudhury, further submits that the actual story, which has been narrated in Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 of the petition; is that the petitioner was called by the driver of the said vehicle in order to mend the vehicle and when he reached there, the police arrested him.

¶22

4.2 Mr. H. R. Choudhury, further submits that the petitioner had gone on a motorcycle to repair the said vehicle and the said motorcycle was seized by Police, after two days of the incident and as such, it is submitted by Mr. H. R. Choudhury that the petitioner is entitled to get released, more so, on the fact that the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours.

¶23

5. Mr. R. G. Baruah, learned APP, submits that on perusal of the Trial Court records, it is revealed that there is overwriting in the date and time of arrest of the petitioner, in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Forwarding Report and as such, Mr. Baruah has prayed before this Court for calling of a report, as to the authenticity of the same.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

5.1 Mr. R. G. Baruah, further submits that as per the FIR, it has been clearly stated that the contrabands were recovered from the possession of both the persons, i.e., the driver and the petitioner and that, by taking recourse to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶26

6. However, since this is a bail application and there appears to be some discrepancy in the date and time of arrest, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner be released on bail, on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/-, with one local surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, on the following conditions-

¶27

(i) He will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when called for;

¶28

(ii) He will not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; and

¶29

(iii) He will not influence the witnesses connected with the case.

¶30

7. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Dilwar Hussain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilwar Hussain 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

Habibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam

Rasid Ali Vs the State of Assam

MD Mustafizur Rahman Laskar Vs the State of Assam

Nayan Das Vs the State of Assam

Sri Preetam Rout and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Bharat Chetia Vs Sri Rituparna Das