Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13522 (GAU)

ZAKIR HUSSAIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./1847/2025 · 2025-06-22

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010118242025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1847/2025 ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O LATE JAHID ALI R/O SATGAON, AMBRI, OPP. SCHOLAR SCHOOL, P.S. SATGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B B GOGOI, A ISLAM,MD IMRAN,MR S H SIKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 23.06 . 2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner Zakir Hussain, who has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 17.01.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 73/2023 (arising out of Satgaon P.S. Case No.13/2023) under Sections 22(c)/ 20(b)(ii)(B)/ 8(c) of the NDPS Act. 2. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the Page No.# 2/3 bars for last 2 years 5 months 6 days. Right to personal liberty of the petitioner has been curtailed. Out of 8 enlisted witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined so far. It is not only the petitioner’s fault which led to the procrastination of trial, but the State is equally responsible. On 10.09.2024, one witness was present but learned Addl. Public prosecutor was absent. The last bail order was passed by this court in connection with B.A. No. 4705/2023 which reflects that on 22.01.204, bail prayer of the petitioner was rejected with a direction to the learned trial court to expedite the trial, but the trial court has procrastinated the trial. The petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and father of the two minor children, who are in a helpless condition as the petitioner is behind the bars for more than 2 years, 5 months 6 days. 4. Learned Addl. P.P. has raised serious objection stating that Section 37 of the NDPS Act acts as an embargo as the petitioner is booked under a heinous offence. The petitioner was caught red handed while transporting 1,500 YABA tablets along with 3.4. K. Gs. of ganja. The petitioner is complicit. 5. The scanned copy of the trial court record clearly reveals that as the petitioner was not represented by his counsel, a legal aid counsel was appointed by the trial court to represent the petitioner. I have perused the case diary. 6. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17.01.2023, on a tip of, an investigating team went to the petitioner’s house and on searching the petitioner’s house, the aforementioned contraband was recovered. The allegations are indeed grave in nature. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 8. However, I have also considered the length of detention. I have considered that the fact that the petitioner is the father of two minor children. Page No.# 3/3 9. I have considered the submission that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the remaining part of the trial and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon him. The concern of the learned Addl. P.P. relating to double pronged conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act may be addressed by imposing strict conditions while enlarging the petitioner on bail. 10. In the wake of aforementioned discussions and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court under the conditions that:- (1) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, (2) the petitioner shall not jump the bail and shall not exercise threats to any witness, (3) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission from the trial court, till completion of trial, 11. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 12. Bail application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant