Disposed¶32

Niyamat Ullah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2026I.A.(Crl.)/271/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal; Section 430(2) BNSS 2023; Section 20(b)/29 NDPS Act; ganja 2.200 kg recovery from Tempo, Silonibari Outpost, Laluk Circle, Lakhimpur; discrepancies in PW1/PW5/PW2/PW3 depositions; Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019; Special Judge Lakhimpur; judgment dated 05.12.2024; bail bond Rs.30,000 with like surety; fine Rs.50,000; Gauhati High Court; Anjan Moni Kalita J.; order dated 02.06.2026; I.A.(Crl.)/271/2026.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2024 in Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019 until disposal of the connected Criminal Appeal, and release of the applicant/appellant on bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with surety of like amount; the instant I.A. disposed of. ¶32

Niyamat Ullah Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the several discrepancies in the versions of the witnesses, apparent from the depositions of PW1 and PW5 (with differing accounts in PW2 and PW3 as to from whom the Ganja was recovered), undermine the prosecution case and render the impugned judgment mechanical. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account the materials and the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the Court held that the conviction and sentence passed vide the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2024 by the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur in Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019 should be suspended at this stage until the connected Appeal is disposed of.

¶30

Key takeaways

The applicant/appellant is directed to be released forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Anjan Moni Kalita, J.), order dated 02.06.2026 in I.A.(Crl.)/271/2026 under Section 430(2) of the BNSS, 2023 filed by Niyamat Ullah, convicted under Section 20(b)/29 of NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.50,000/- (default 1 year simple imprisonment) vide judgment and order dated 05.12.2024 of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur in Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019 (recovery of alleged Ganja about 2.200 kg from a Tempo on 06.09.2019): noting the discrepancies in the depositions of PW1 and PW5 and the differing accounts of PW2 and PW3 urged by counsel, and the connected Criminal Appeal being pending, the Court held the conviction and sentence should be suspended until the Appeal is disposed of, and directed release of the applicant/appellant on a bail bond of Rs.30,000/- with surety of like amount; the I.A. was disposed of accordingly.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010149082025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No.: I.A.(Crl.)/271/2026

¶6

NIYAMAT ULLAH S/O- MD. MOFIZ ALI R/O- VILLAGE PUB CHANDMARI P.S- NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST-LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

¶9

-----------Advocate for : SATYAJIT DUTTA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶10

BEFORE

¶11

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

¶12

ORDER

¶13

02.06.2026

¶14

Heard Mr. M. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶17

The instant application under Section 430(2) of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed for suspension of execution of the sentence and stay of realization of fine that has been imposed on the appellant vide the judgment and order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur in Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019 whereby the applicant/appellant has been convicted under Section 20(b)/29 of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- only, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year under Section 20(b)/29 of NDPS Act.

¶18

The prosecution case in gist is that on 06.09.2019, the Circle Inspector of Laluk Circle, District-Lakhimpur lodged an FIR before the In-charge of Silonibari Police Outpost alleging inter alia that on 06.09.2019 at about 7.15 PM, on receipt of a telephonic information from his higher officials, he proceeded to Silonibari Outpost and found Prakash Lal Begi, Chiranjib Baruah and Ujjal Bhuyan who intercepted and confined a Tempo vehicle having no number plate wherein three passengers were travelling, namely, Niyat Ullah, Aziz Ali and Nur Mohammad along with a child. On checking the vehicle, the police recovered alleged Ganja weighing about 2.200 kg. After completion of the

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

trial by the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2024, the applicant/appellant has been convicted as mentioned before which is under challenge in the connected Criminal Appeal.

¶21

By filing the instant application, the applicant/appellant has contended that there are several discrepancies in the versions of the witnesses in the instant case which is apparent from the depositions of PW1 and PW5.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that due to the discrepancies and contradictions contained in the depositions of PW1 and PW5, the prosecution story cannot be relied upon and the impugned judgment and order has been passed mechanically by the learned Special Judge in the instant case.

¶23

The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the PW2 specifically deposed that the applicant/appellant is, in fact, the driver of the Tempo and the Ganja so recovered was in fact from the passengers who were traveling in the Tempo. He further submits that the child who was traveling in the Tempo had in fact pinpointed one of the passengers who was carrying the Ganja and the Ganja had been recovered from the aforesaid person. He submits that subsequently, the residence of the child was also searched by the Investigating Officer and certain

¶24

Page No.# 4/5

¶25

amount of Ganja was recovered from the mother of the child. PW3 deposed that the Ganja so recovered was in fact recovered from the bag carried by the child.

¶26

In view of the aforesaid discrepancies, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that he has a good case on merit and since the Appeal has already been filed and is pending, the conviction and sentence of the applicant/appellant should be suspended and the applicant should be granted bail at this stage till the Appeal is disposed of.

¶27

Mr. D. P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, submits that the Ganja was recovered from the Tempo which was driven by the applicant/appellant, and therefore, his involvement in the instant case cannot be denied. He further submits that there is no discrepancy as such in the versions of the PWs. Therefore, he opposes the grant of bail at this stage.

¶28

This Court, after going through the materials brought before this Court and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and taking into account the discrepancies that have been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence so passed, vide

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2024 by the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur in Special (NDPS) Case No.11/2019 should be suspended at this stage until the connected Appeal is disposed of.

¶31

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant/appellant shall be released forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand) only with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur District, North Lakhimpur.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid direction, the instant I.A. is disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Niyamat Ullah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niyamat Ullah v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

Muslem Uddin Vs the State of Assam

Tayabar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Ratan Routh Vs the State of Assam

Tofik Ali Vs the State of Assam

Delowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Mohammad Sahil Khan Vs the State of Assam