Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10808 (GAU)

Ikramul Hussain Son of Asraf Ali v. State of AP

2026-03-13

Anjan Moni Kalita

body2026
ORDER : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. H. Aape, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. T. Ete, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant bail application, under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by one Shri Ikramul Hussain on behalf of the accused Shri Hasinur Alom, who is the cousin brother of the applicant, praying for grant of bail to the accused person, who is languishing in jail in connection with Chimpu Police Station Case No.14/2024, under Sections 21 (b)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The case as has been projected by the accused/ applicant is that an FIR dated 09.02.2024 was lodged by the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Chimpu by Inspector Ongsa Ronrang, alleging, inter alia, that on 09.02.2024 at 1500 hrs, upon receiving information from a reliable source, the police along with the independent witnesses, proceeded to a rented room in Gohpur area at Chimpu, occupied by the alleged accused person and his wife Smti Shokina Begum (co-accused); that when the said room was searched in presence of the witnesses, 99 numbers of plastic vials containing suspected heroin were found packed in two polythene bags, which were concealed under the mattress of the bed; that the net weight of the suspected heroin was found to be 17.8 gms; that at the time of the search, the accused person, Hasinur Alom was not present in the room whereas his wife Shokina Begum was arrested on the very day, i.e., on 09.02.2024 and later on, she was released on bail on 10.04.2025; that the accused person was arrested on 30.05.2025 and since then, he is in jail custody. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that he had filed a bail application being BA No. 523/2025 before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh on 02.12.2025 and the same was taken up by the aforesaid Court on 03.12.2025, whereby an order was passed rejecting his claim for default bail. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that while filing the bail application, he was intimated by the Office of the learned Special Judge, NDPS that no charge sheet was filed at the relevant point of time, when he filed the bail application. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that while filing the bail application, he was intimated by the Office of the learned Special Judge, NDPS that no charge sheet was filed at the relevant point of time, when he filed the bail application. Accordingly, he submits that since there was no charge sheet filed at that relevant point of time, he was allowed to file the bail application and accordingly, he moved the bail application on 03.12.2025. He submits that his bail application was rejected on the ground that the Investigating Officer had already submitted the charge sheet against the accused person in the instant case. He submits that the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Yupia has recorded in his bail rejection order that charge sheet No.104/2025 dated 29.11.2025 was received by the learned Special Judge, NDPS on 01.12.2025 and since the bail application No. 523/2025 was filed on 02.12.2025, the accused applicant was not entitled to default bail. He submits that a co-ordinate bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Samsun Noor @ Samsul Noor vs. State of Assam ; reported in 2022 (5) GauLT 405 has specifically held that timing of receipt of the charge sheet has to be counted on the time and date when the concerned Court actually looks into the charge sheet by putting his initial signature with date in the charge sheet as well as in the Register maintained with the date and seal of the Magistrate/Court. It would be the date on which both the aforesaid are complied with by the Magistrate to be the date on which the charge sheet has been deemed to have been submitted to the Magistrate/Court. 5. TCR in the instant case was received on 09.03.2026 and same was perused. However, this Court could not find any material which can conclusively provide the time and date of receipt of the charge sheet. This Court could not find any seal or notings of the concerned Court in the charge sheet about receipt of the charge sheet. 6. 5. TCR in the instant case was received on 09.03.2026 and same was perused. However, this Court could not find any material which can conclusively provide the time and date of receipt of the charge sheet. This Court could not find any seal or notings of the concerned Court in the charge sheet about receipt of the charge sheet. 6. Faced with situation, this Court, vide order dated 09.03.2026 directed the concerned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia Papum pare District for following details:- (i) the Register maintained by the G.R. Office of the concerned Court, wherein the charge sheet submitted were received and recorded; (ii) the Register maintained by the Court for receipt of the charge sheets which was being forwarded from the G. R. Office; and (iii) the time and date when actually the bail application was filed by the accused applicant in the instant case. 7. In accordance with the aforesaid directions, the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Papum pare District has submitted a report dated 11.03.2026 along with the scanned copies of the relevant Registers. The same is kept on record by marking the same as ‘X’. 8. On perusal of the aforesaid report, it is seen that the charge sheet of the said case was received by the G.R. Branch on 02.12.2025 and the same was received by the staff of the Court of District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS) on the same day, i.e., on 02.12.2025. It is also seen that bail application No. 523/2025 was also registered on 02.12.2025 and the same was listed on the next day, i.e., on 03.12.2025. It is further seen that, as per the report, the time of receipt of charge sheet and bail application are not maintained in any Register. From the copies of the aforesaid Register, it is seen that though both the bail application as well as the charge sheet was received on 02.12.2025, there was no noting in respect of timings and receipt of the aforesaid documents. Further, from the report of the District and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Papum pare District, it is not found as to exactly when the charge sheet was placed before the Court. Further, from the report of the District and Sessions Judge- cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Papum pare District, it is not found as to exactly when the charge sheet was placed before the Court. Since the bail application was placed on 03.12.2025 and the same was rejected on the basis of the concerned charge sheet by the aforesaid Court, the charge sheet is deemed to have been placed and perused by the Court on 03.12.2025. So, it is discernible, from the aforesaid fact that the charge sheet has to be treated as submitted on 03.12.2025 after the filing of the bail application, i.e., on 02.12.2025. 9. As referred to above, the Gauhati High Court has laid down the procedural law regarding submission of charge sheet in the case of Samsun Noor @ Samsul Noor (supra) and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: “37.This aspect of the matter can be looked from another angle. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Ravindran (supra) and the relevant paragraphs quoted hereinabove clearly shows that section 167 (2) of the Code is integrally linked with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and an obligation is cast upon the state under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure prior to depriving any person of his personal liberty. This valuable right under Section 167 (2) of the Code cannot be made nugatory at the hands of the office of the Magistrate/ the Court. It is also relevant herein to take note of the (the fact that) allowing the office of the Magistrate/the Court to receive on behalf of the Magistrate/the Court may lead to manipulations which would affect the rights of the prosecution as well as the accused as the case may be. It is therefore, the Magistrate/the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence who is required under law to put the initial with date and the seal of the Court on the register maintained in terms with Assam Police Manual so that there is no scope of any manipulation”. “38. It is therefore, the Magistrate/the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence who is required under law to put the initial with date and the seal of the Court on the register maintained in terms with Assam Police Manual so that there is no scope of any manipulation”. “38. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that submission of the charge sheet before the Office of the Magistrate/the Court would not be sufficient compliance in terms with Section 173 (2) of the Code read with Rule 38 and 69 of the Assam Police Manual Part-IV and it is only when the Magistrate/ the Court competent to take cognizance of the offence, puts the initials in the charge sheet as well as in the Register maintained with date and seal of the Magistrate/ the Court, it would be that date on which the charge sheet has been deemed to have been submitted to the Magistrate/ the Court.” 10 . On a specific query to the learned Addl. PP as to whether the Assam Police Manual is followed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh or not, the learned Addl. PP, on instruction, has submitted that the Assam Police Manual is being followed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh also. 11. Being so, in the instant case, as the bail application was filed on 02.12.2025 and the charge sheet was deemed to have been filed on 03.12.2025, the bail application is apparently filed prior to the filing of the charge sheet. Since the accused applicant has already spent statutory period of 180 days behind the bars without being any charge sheet filed during that period, he is liable to be released on a default bail. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Gauhati High Court and the apparent fact of filing of the charge sheet subsequent to the filing of the bail application on 02.12.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused applicant is liable to be released on default bail. 12. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Gauhati High Court and the apparent fact of filing of the charge sheet subsequent to the filing of the bail application on 02.12.2025, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused applicant is liable to be released on default bail. 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that the accused, namely, Shri Hasinur Alom shall be released forthwith from jail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, Papum pare District subject to the following conditions: (i) that the accused applicant shall appear before the trial Court as and when required; (ii) that the accused applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence or induce any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court; (iii) that the accused applicant shall not indulge in any activities similar to the activities as alleged in the FIR; and (iv) that the accused applicant shall submit the copies of his Aadhar card and Pan card before the trial Court. 13. In the event of any default of the terms and conditions of the bail, the concerned authority shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps as per law. 14. In view of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application stands disposed of. 15. The Registry of Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Permanent Bench is directed to circulate the instant court to all subordinate courts for information and needful.