Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2878/2026 of SRI DEBA RABHA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 6 October 2026
GAHC010205792026 2026:GAU-AS:15040 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2878/2026 SRI DEBA RABHA AND ANR S/O LATE SOMBAR RABHA, R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 GORAIBARI, DHULA CHUBURI, P.S. AND DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM. 2: SRI BINOY
GAHC010205792026
2026:GAU-AS:15040
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2878/2026
SRI DEBA RABHA AND ANR
S/O LATE SOMBAR RABHA, R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 GORAIBARI, DHULA
CHUBURI, P.S. AND DISTRICT UDALGURI, ASSAM.
2: SRI BINOY RABHA
S/O LATE KIRO RABHA
R/O VILLAGE NO. 2 GORAIBARI
DHULA CHUBURI
P.S. AND DISTRICT UDALGURI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U J SAIKIA, K BARO
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 07.10.2026
Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicants in connection with Udalguri Police Station Case No. 64/2026, registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27A/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of the facts, are that four co-accused persons, namely, Bikash Lama, Bhaiti Sutradhar, Sanjib Sen, and Anil Ali, have been apprehended by the police on receipt of credible information. Thereafter, on search, a total amount of 234.89 kg of cannabis was recovered from their possession. During investigation, the four apprehended persons had disclosed the names of the two accused-applicants, stating that the two accused-applicants are the kingpins of the whole procurement, transportation, and selling of the cannabis.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants have been arrested solely on the basis of the statements of the co-accused persons, who have been named in the FIR, and there is no material against the accused-applicants in the instant case; therefore, he prays that they should be granted bail.
5. The learned Addl. PP, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for bail, stating that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused-applicants in the instant case.
6. The Case Diary in the instant case has been received, and the same is perused by this Court.
7. Having found sufficient prima facie incriminating materials regarding the coexistence and relationship between the accused-applicants as well as the FIR- named accused persons, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused- applicants at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands rejected.
JUDGE
Miriam Degu (SPA)