Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam on 26 November, 2025
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010199692025
2025:GAU-AS:16117
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3019/2025
UBAYDUR RAHMAN ALIAS UBAIDUR RAHMAN
SON OFMD. AB DUL NOOR
RESIDENT OF VILL- MAZARGRAM ERALIGOOL PART-I, P.S.
PATHARKANDI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P DAS, MS. M BHUYAN,MS. P BORAH
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 26-11-2025
Heard Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S.H.
Bora, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.
2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Ubaydur
Rahman @Ubaidur Rahman under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Page No.# 2/4
Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with NDPS Case No.60/2023
(corresponding to Guwahati G.R.P.S. Case No.163/2022), pending in the Court
of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup(M), Guwahati under Sections 21(c)/29
of the NDPS Act.
3. The case relates to seizure of 1 kg of heroin that had been recovered from
the petitioner and co-accused Abud Ahmed on 19.11.2022. Both the above two
persons had been arrested with ½ kg of Heroin each from a train.
4. Another co-accused, i.e., Md. Majibur Rahman had been arrested on the
basis of the statement made by the petitioner and co-accused Abud Ahmed.
5. The petitioner's counsel submits that as Md. Majibur Rahman has been
granted bail vide order dated 05.01.2024, passed in Bail Appln. No.2479/2023,
the petitioner, who is a co-accused, should also be granted bail. The petitioner's
counsel further submits that the petitioner having been in judicial custody for
more than 3 years and as the trial has not started till date, the petitioner should
be granted bail.
6. Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Addl. P.P. submits that Md. Majibur Rahman had
been granted bail by this Court in view of the fact that no heroin had been
seized from him. Further, Md. Majibur Rahman having been arrested on the
basis of the statement made by the co-accused, which were not admissible in
evidence, the release of Md. Majibur Rahman on bail cannot have an effect on
the plea for bail made by the petitioner herein.
7. The learned Addl. P.P. further submits that in terms of the order dated
07.11.2025, passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.
Namdeo Ashruba Nakade in SLP (Crl.) No.9792/2025, wherein it had
referred to another of it's judgment passed in the case of Narcotics Control
Page No.# 3/4
Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848, it has been held
that while considering an application for bail, the Court has to bear in mind the
provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which are mandatory in nature.
Further, the recording of a finding as mandated in Section 37, is a sine qua non
for granting bail to the accused involved in offences under the NDPS Act.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. As can be seen from the facts of this case, the applicant was arrested with
the co-accused Abud Ahmed for possessing ½ kg of heroin each. The applicant
has been in jail for more than 3 years, inasmuch as, he had been arrested on
19.11.2022. It is also noticed that the earlier 4 bail applications of the petitioner,
i.e., Bail Appln. No.956/2024, Bail Appln. No.1527/2024, Bail Appln.
No.1709/2024 and Bail Appln. No.1371/2025 had been rejected by this Court.
10. The co-accused Md. Majibur Rahman had been released on bail, as no
drugs were recovered from the possession of Md. Majibur Rahman. With regard
to the trial not having been started by the learned Trial Court, it has come to the
knowledge of this Court that notices have been issued with respect to the
absconder accused Md. Hussain Ahmed, to be published in a national and a
local daily newspaper, circulating in the last known address of said Md. Hussain
Ahmed, vide order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
11. The above appears to be in consonance with the order dated 24.06.2025
passed in Bail Application No. 1371/2025, wherein this Court had directed the
learned Trial Court to proceed with the Trial, even in the absence of the
absconding co-accused in terms of Section 350(C) of BNSS.
Page No.# 4/4
12. As has been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
Supreme Court in the case of Namdeo Ashruba Nakade (supra) held that
the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be followed while
considering an application for bail, where the minimum sentence is for 10 years.
In the present case, I am of the prima facie view that the applicant has not
been able to show that he is not guilty of the offence for which he has been
charged. The minimum sentence that can be inflicted in the event of conviction
of the applicant would be 10 years.
13. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that bail
cannot be allowed at this stage.
14. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
