Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118632024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/764/2024 AYANAL HOQUE S/O-LATE MANCHAR ALI R/O-VILLAGE-CHOWKATI NO.1 P.S.-KOKRAJHAR DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. U CHOUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/68/2024 AYANAL HOQUE S/O-LATE MANCHAR ALI, R/O-VILLAGE-CHOWTAKI NO.1, P.S.- KOKRAJHAR, DISTRICT-KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 15.07.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. U. Choudhury, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the applicant- appellant. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant-appellant has prayed for suspending the sentence inflicted upon him, on his conviction under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, vide judgment and order dated 02.02.2024 passed in Special (Nar) Case No.05(BGN)/ 2023, arising out of Bongaigaon G.R.P.S. Case No.45/2022. 3. The case of the applicant-appellant is that there has been recovery of the psychotropic tablets involving commercial quantity in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that even though the recovery has been made from the pitthu bag of the applicant- appellant and not from the apparel worn by the applicant-appellant, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is attracted. Violation of the same would thus require grant of bail to the applicant-appellant. He also submits that even though the recovery had been made in the railway station, no independent witnesses were called by Page No.# 3/3 the enforcement agency at the time of seizure. 4. Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. P.P, on the other hand, submits that there has been no violation of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act during search and seizure and as the main case has been listed for final hearing on 10.08.2026, the application may be rejected at this stage. 5. On considering the fact that grant of an application under Section 430(2) BNSS requires a prima facie finding that the applicant would not be found guilty during trial, which in this case, has been proved to be otherwise, we are not inclined to allow the application at this stage. Also, as the main appeal has been fixed for final hearing on 10.08.2026, the application is accordingly rejected at this stage. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant