Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010053692025 2025:GAU-AS:3674 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./760/2025 MD MUKSIDUL HOQUE S/O- MD. MANSUR HOQUE, R/O- VILLAGE TEZPUR PANCH MILE, P.S- TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 28.03.2025 Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is preferred by the petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 01.02.2025 in connection with Behali P.S. Case No. 12/2025, registered under Section 111 of the BNS, read with Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was not involved in the alleged offence but was the owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-12AE-8301. Nothing was recovered from his possession; however, his name has been wrongly implicated as he had given a lift to an unknown person, i.e., the accused Harjul Islam. He further states that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 56 days and, considering the length of detention already undergone, he may be released on bail, as the I.O. has had sufficient time for custodial interrogation. Thus, he submits that this bail application is based solely on the ground of prolonged detention. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the seized contraband was recorded as 27.43 grams of heroin, but there is no mention of the net weight of the contraband. He further submits that the FSL report has not yet been received. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels for both sides, along with other aspects of the case, and taking into account that the accused/petitioner has Page No.# 3/3 already undergone 56 days of detention, I am of the view that the I.O. got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. Accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner does not appear necessary in this case. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM (M), Biswanath Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Muksidul Hoque, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned SDJM (M), Biswanath Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, without prior permission. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant