Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19895 (GAU)

SHAFIZUL HOQUE ALIAS SOFIZUL v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

AB/2364/2025 · 2025-10-13

Pranjal Das

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010218922025 2025:GAU-AS:13735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2364/2025 SHAFIZUL HOQUE ALIAS SOFIZUL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAGHMARA, PO ALOMGANJ, PS GOURIPUR, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MS J YESMIN,MR S PRODHANI,MR Z RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 14.10.2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Shaifizul Hoque @ Sofizul, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 377/2025 under Section 21(b)/29 NDPS Act, 1985 (corresponding in Page No.# 2/2 G.R. case No. 1291/2025). 3. The case arose out FIR dated 05.09.2025, upon in which it is alleged that source information the operation was carried out and the 10 grams of suspected heroine was found from one Sofikul Islam son of Nur Mohammad. It appears that the present petitioner Shafizul Hoque @ Sofizul son of Sirajul Hoque @ Sirajul emerged from the statement of the arrested accused. 4. The case diary as called for has been received. 5. The learned Additional P.P. submits that the apart from the statement of the co-accused, implications emerged also against the present petitioner from the statements of the other witnesses also. 6. I have perused the statements of two witnesses, both of stated about the involvement of the present petitioner in peddling of drugs. 7. The given facts and circumstances as the investigation is not yet completed, I do not deem it wise to grant anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. 9. Returned back the case diary JUDGE Comparing Assistant