Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222282025 2026:GAU-AS:8590 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1271/2025 MD IMRAN HUSSAIN SON OF ABDUL MOTALEB RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - ISLAMPUR, P.S. LALUK, DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. RAJIB SARMA, MR. R SARMA,D GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Mr R Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Sectio 430 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for suspension of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2025, passed by Page No.# 2/3 the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Special (NDPS) Case No. 10/2022, by which the applicant/appellant was convicted under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act, and was sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years with fine and default stipulation under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act. The petitioner was also sentenced to undergo RI for 3 (three) years with fine and default stipulation under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. In the said Judgment and Order, it is not reflected that the sentences would run concurrently, and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when it is not provided by the Court as to whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively, the sentences would run consecutively. As such, the petitioner is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 8 years. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant after the said judgment and order was passed, i.e., on 20.03.2025, the applicant had surrendered and he is inside the jail to serve out the sentence since the said date, and by now, he has completed 1 year 3 months of incarceration, out of his total period of 8 years. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the investigation of the instant case, Section 50 and Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were not followed and further that, there were many discrepancies regarding the date and time of seizure and also that the petitioner had not seen what was written in the seizure memo and that he has simply put his signature. He also submits that the recovery of the contrabands was not made from the applicant, rather it was recovered from the accused No. 2 and he was Page No.# 3/3 the accused No. 3 in the said case. 6. On the other hand, Mr K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that procedures have been undertaken properly while investigating the case and recovery was also made from the petitioner. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties and in consideration of the facts of the case, as well as the facts that intermediate quantity was recovered in the instant case and that the co-convict, namely, Abdul Hussain, was also released on bail by suspending the sentence, and further due to the violation of certain provisions of the NDPS Act, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence vide Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2025, and the applicant be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 8. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant