Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22187 (GAU)

RAHIM UDDIN v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./3920/2024 · 2025-01-29

Susmita Phukan Khaund

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010273852024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3920/2024 RAHIM UDDIN S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KALGACHIA PO AND PS KALGACHIA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781319 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M Z SHAH, MD S HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 30.01.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Hussain for the petitioner Rahim Uddin. 2. This application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 08.10.2024 in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 149/2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his companions were apprehended by the investigating team. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that contraband was not recovered from his possession. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that this is a serious offence and 360.74 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of Manoranjan Khatriya who was present with the petitioner and other co-accused who tried to flee on being apprehended by the investigating team. Their conduct itself reveals that they are complicit. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the FIR as well as in the Case Diary against the petitioner. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, atleast at this stage of investigation acts as an embargo against the petitioner’s bail prayer. I have considered the gravity of the offence. 7. In view of my foregoing discussions, petition with prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage of investigation. 8. Send back the Case Diary. Page No.# 3/3 JUDGE Comparing Assistant