[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Narjima Begum vs The State Of Assam on 2 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010043892026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./637/2026
NARJIMA BEGUM
W/O AITUL ALI
R/O UDIANA, BALAGAON, P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, S NAZNIN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 02.04.2026
Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I. U.
Choudhry, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard
Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State of Assam.
2. This is an application, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting
Page No.# 2/4
bail to the accused-applicant, namely, Narjima Begum, in connection with Rangia
P.S. Case No. 278/2025, registered under Sections 17(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case is inter alia that one W.S.I. Jitumani Rabha of Rangia
Police Station has lodged an FIR before Rangia P.S. alleging that after receipt of
credible information that a huge consignment of narcotics (Opium) had been
received from Manipur by some narcotics dealers, namely, Aitul Ali and his brother,
Mamtul Ali @ Mantul Ali and the aforesaid narcotics had been stocked in their
house. Based on the input, a raid was carried out in the house of Aitul Ali and his
brother Mamtul Ali, @ Mantul Ali at village Udiana, Balagaon, Police Station -
Rangia and recovered 86 kgs (without cover) of Opium valued at Rs.5 Crores and 16
lakhs in open market which had been packed in 45 nos. of packets. Getting
suspicious presence of some police, the Aitul Ali and his brother Mamtul Ali, @
Mantul Ali fled away from the house; that the Jarina Begum, wife of the Mamtul Ali
@ Mantul Ai, who is also a partner in the narcotics trade, was stopped from fleeing
away; that along with the Jarina Begum, some other persons were also present in
the house, who were in the process of opening the Opium packets and weighing
them, and thereafter to deliver the same to other places, were also apprehended;
that Rs. 25,25,400/- in cash along with the aforesaid Opium were also recovered
from the house; that the aforesaid Aitul Ali and Mamtul Ali, along with their wives
and other family members, had been alleged to be engaged in narcotics trade for a
long time; that from the narcotics trade, they have accumulated huge assets in
terms of lands, houses, luxuries and invested in various business ventures; that the
accused persons do not have any other known source of legitimate income; and
that Aitul Ali and Mamtul Ali have a number of NDPS Act cases pending against
them.
4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Rangia P.S. Case No. 278/2025
under the aforementioned sections.
Page No.# 3/4
5. The present accused applicant is the wife of the aforesaid accused, namely,
Aitul Ali and she was arrested on 15.12.2025 from the same house and forwarded
to the learned Special Judge, Rangia on 15.12.2025 and since the date of her arrest,
she is in judicial custody.
6. The accused-applicant had, on an earlier occasion, filed a bail application, i.e.,
Bail Appln. 35/2026, which was rejected by this Court, vide it's order dated
12.02.2026.
7. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the accused-applicant is
a housewife, having no criminal antecedents and she has been falsely implicated in
the instant case only because she is the wife of the accused, Aitul Ali. The learned
Senior Counsel submits that the accused-applicant is resident of first floor of the
building, wherein, along with her husband, Aitul Ali and her in-laws reside, whereas
the seized opium were recovered from the second floor of the house, wherein the
co-accused, namely, Mamtul Ali, who is the brother-in-law of the accused-applicant
stays along with his wife, Jarina Begum. The learned Senior Counsel submits that no
narcotic drugs or opium had been recovered or seized from the first floor where the
accused-applicant resides with her family. The learned Senior Counsel further
submits that the accused-applicant has 2(two) children aged about 9 & 4 years
respectively and since her arrest on 15.12.2025, she is behind the bars. The learned
Senior Counsel submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in
the instant case and she is in no way connected with the alleged offence committed
by the co-accused in the instant case. The learned Senior Counsel submits that
taking into account of the fact that the accused-applicant has two minor children
and she being a lady, her case should be considered on humanitarian ground as she
does not have any history of any criminal past. The learned Senior Counsel further
submits that there is no admissible evidence on record against the accused-
applicant to justify her continued detention or to invoke the embargo, under
Page No.# 4/4
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 against her. In view of the aforesaid, the learned
Senior Counsel submits that further detention of the accused-applicant may not be
necessary in the instant case and therefore, she should be allowed to go on bail.
8. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P., opposes the bail application by
submitting that huge quantity of narcotic drugs has been recovered from the
resident of the accused-applicant and the main accused, her husband, namely, Aitul
Ali is still absconding. Therefore, the learned Addl. P.P., opposes the bail to the
accused-applicant at this stage.
9. This Court has on the earlier occasion, considered the Case Diary and on due
consideration of the facts and submissions of the learned counsel, has rejected the
bail application of the accused-applicant, vide it's order dated 12.02.2026.
10. It is seen that no grounds, whatsoever, has been made out in the instant case,
other than the submission that the accused-applicant has been behind the bars
since her arrest on 15.12.2025. It is also seen that though certain co-accused
involved in the instant case have been released by this Court, the same was done
due to non-compliance of mandatory notices, under Section 47 & 48 of BNSS.
However, in the instant case, this Court has already perused the Case Diary, on
earlier occasion and found that there is no such ground available for the present
accused-applicant in the instant case.
11. Taking into account the entire facts of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the accused-applicant at this stage.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the instant bail application is rejected and disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
