Gauhati High Court
Md Atabur Rahman Laskar @ Md Atabur ... vs The State Of Assam on 27 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010037962025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./507/2025
MD ATABUR RAHMAN LASKAR @ MD ATABUR RAHMAN
S/O- MD KALA RAJA LASKAR R/O- HATIHAR, SINGIRBOND PART -II, PS
LAKHIPUR, DIST- CACHAR, SILCHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA, J MEDHI,MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 27.02.2025
1. Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been
Page No.# 2/4
filed by the petitioner namely, Md. Atabur Rahman Laskar @ Md.
Atabur Rahman who has been detained behind the bars since
02.11.2024 (for the last 117 days) in connection with Kalain P.S. Case
No. 250/2024 under Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that on the basis of a FIR lodged on 29.10.2024 by one Maheswari
Das, Sub Inspector of police, inter alia, alleging that 69 gram of
heroin was recovered from a vehicle bearing registration no. AS 01-
AM-0131, an investigation was initiated and after completion of
investigation charge-sheet was laid wherein the present petitioner has
also been shown as an absconder.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the case
and he has been implicated falsely on the basis of statement made by
the co-accused only. He further submits that the vehicle from which
the contraband were recovered is also not in his name but is in the
name of the wife of the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that as the charge-sheet has already been laid and the
petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial, his further custodial
detention may not be necessary. He further relies upon the judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu reported in 2021 4 SCC 1.
6. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State has submitted that since the charge-sheet has been laid the
Page No.# 3/4
scanned copy of the Case Diary may be call for.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material
available on record including the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by
the learned court of Special Judge Cachar in NDPS Case No. 155/2024
whereby the prayer for bail for the present petitioner is rejected.
8. On perusal of the rejection order it appears that main
ground for rejection of the bail by the Trial Court was that the co-
accused in this case have implicated the present petitioner in the
offence alleged in this case. Moreover, the vehicle from which the
recovery of contraband was made is also registered in the name of
the wife of the present petitioner. It is no longer res-integra in view
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that the statement of the co-accused
recorded during the investigation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is
not admissible in evidence in a trial where the offence under NDPS
Act is involved.
9. Be that as it may as the petitioner has already been
detained behind the bars for the last 117 days and he is ready to co-
operate in the trial, this court finds no justification to detained him
further in connection with NDPS Case No. 155/2024.
10. In view of the above reasons the above named petitioner is
allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court
with the following conditions :-
Page No.# 4/4
i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of
NDPS Case No. 155/2024, which is pending in the Court
of learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar;
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before
the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial
Court for the sake of fair completion of the trial;
iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to
any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the
case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such
facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against
the present petitioner;
11. With above observations this bail application is hereby
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
