Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086352026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1149/2026 SHAMIM MIAH AND 2 ORS SON OF ABDUL RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. PUBERGAON, P.S. MANKACHAR, DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, ASSAM. 2: MOMTAZ KHATUN WIFE OF SHAMIM MIAH RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. PUBERGAON P.S. MANKACHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM. 3: MONJUWARA KHATUN WIFE OF LATE NAZIR HUSSAIN RESIDENT OF VILL- 2 NO. PUBERGAON POLICE STATION- MANKACHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MR A HAI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Page No.# 2/3 ORDER Date : 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, namely 1. Shamim Miah, 2. Momtaz Khatun and 3. Monjuwara Khatun, who have filed this application under Section 483 BNSS with a prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 31.03.2026 in connection with Mankachar P.S. Case No. 45/2026 registered under Section 21(b)/22(a)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, who has raised serious objection stating that this is a heinous offence. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the women accused are with two children in the jail premises cannot be accepted as they are involved in a heinous offence. Both the children are below three years and two years. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two young kids are with their mothers in the jail premises. The environment is not suitable for the young kids inside the jail. 4. The petitioners have also undergone substantial period of detention. Presumably they have been thoroughly interrogated and further custodial interrogation may not be required for the progress of investigation. They are booked for possession of intermediate quantity of contraband. 5. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. It appears that further custodial detention may not be required. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions, if imposed upon them. 6. I have considered that the petitioners are local residents and are not flight risks. Considering all aspect, the petitioners named above are enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- each with a suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Court under the following conditions:- (i) the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged; (ii) the petitioners shall appear before the I/O on every fortnight till completion of investigation. (iii) the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 7. On breach of any of the bail conditions, bail order shall automatically stand vacated. Page No.# 3/3 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant