[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 25 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010045862026
2026:GAU-AS:4287
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./681/2026
KHAIRUL ISLAM ALIAS ALIM UDDIN
S/O - AFTAB UDDIN, R/O - VILL. SOUTH BANDARKUNA, P.O - ERALIGOOL,
P.S - PATHARKANDI, DIST. - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM - 788720
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : A RAHMAN, A DEY,MR. J RAHMAN,MR. S. SUR
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
25-03-2026
Heard Mr. S. Sur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for
grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Khairul Islam @ Alim Uddin who
has been arrested on 26.05.2025 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.
112/2024 (corresponding to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 334/2024) under
Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Sur, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and
he is no way connected with the alleged offence, nor there is any recovery from his
possession. On the basis of the statement made by the co-accused persons of the
case only the case has been charge sheeted against him, but during the entire
investigation, police never searched for him and thus, he is not aware about the
case registered against him.
5. He further submitted that after receiving summons from the Court, he
appeared before the learned Special Judge on 26.05.2025 and since then, he is in
custody. His bail applications were earlier rejected by the learned Special Judge in
three occasions only considering the fact that he was shown as an absconder, the
case is under commercial quantity and also considering the rigor of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act.
6. Mr. Sur, learned counsel further submitted that it is a fact that on the date of
incident, he was called by one of the co-accused, who belongs to the same village
Page No.# 3/5
asking him for settlement of an issue and on good faith, he went to visit him, but
subsequently he came to know that the said person along with one other already
got arrested by police in connection with the present case. As per the FIR the
contraband was recovered from the possession of two other co-accused persons
who were found along with the contraband which was carried in a Auto Van, but
the present petitioner is not at all connected with the alleged offence.
7. He further submitted that the case has already been charge sheeted and
there is no probability of tempering with the investigation at this stage. Further he
being the permanent resident of the addressed locality will regularly appear before
the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed.
8. He further submitted that two co-accused persons have already been
granted bail and considering the case of the petitioner on the same footing, he
may also be granted bail on the ground of parity.
9. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that from the FIR itself it is
seen that there were four person coming in a Auto Van wherefrom the entire
contraband was recovered and two of them got arrested by police with the
contraband and other two persons managed to fled away from the place of
occurrence and during investigation and considering the statement made by the
co-accused persons it has come to the knowledge that out of two person, one was
the present accused petitioner and during entire period of investigation, he never
cooperated with the I.O. Inspite of several search, police could not apprehend the
petitioner and for which he was shown as an absconder in the charge sheet.
10. Mr. Sarma, further submitted that from the available materials in the case
record it is seen that four persons including the present petitioner were in the
same Auto Van and the purchased the contraband from Mizoram with a view to sell
the same in that locality and during that process only two of them were
Page No.# 4/5
apprehended by police with the contraband.
11. Mr. Sarma further submitted that the case has already been charge sheeted
and against the present petitioner charge is also framed on 19.08.2025 and the
next date is fixed for evidence on 04.04.2026. Till date no material witnesses could
be examined by the prosecution to know the involvement of the present petitioner
and accordingly he submitted that till the recording of evidence of some material
witnesses, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage.
12. Mr. Sarma further submitted that considering the materials in the case record
there cannot be any plea that the accused is innocent or will not commit any such
offence in future to grant bail to satisfy the twin condition of Section 37 of NDPS
Act.
13. Mr. Sarma accordingly raised objection and submitted that this is an
organized crime and at this stage, the prayer for bail may not be considered.
14. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I
have also perused the case record and the materials in the record wherefrom it
reveals that the petitioner is prima facie involved in the alleged offence and he is
stated to be one of the person who fled away from the place of incident at the time
when the other two persons were apprehended by police along with the
contraband. From the materials in the case record it cannot also be held that the
petitioner is totally innocent and will not commit any such offence, if he is released
on bail. The case is registered under the commercial quantity and there is no
reasonable ground to believe that the accused petitioner is innocent to satisfy the
twin condition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The case is at the initial stage of trial
and 04.04.2026 is the first date fixed for evidence.
15. In view of above, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of
bail to the petitioner only considering the length of detention undergone by the
Page No.# 5/5
petitioner.
16. Accordingly, this bail application for the petitioner, namely, Khairul Islam @
Alim Uddin in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 112/2024
(corresponding to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 334/2024) under Sections
21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act stands rejected.
17. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
