Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2323/2026 of RAKIBUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 September 2026
GAHC010169702026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2323/2026 RAKIBUL ISLAM S/O SAHANUR ALI AGED VILLAGE BHAIRAGURI PAM, PO BHAIRAGURI, P.S. BARPETA DIST BARPETA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010169702026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2323/2026
RAKIBUL ISLAM
S/O SAHANUR ALI AGED VILLAGE BHAIRAGURI PAM, PO BHAIRAGURI, P.S. BARPETA DIST BARPETA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR T T MONI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
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 : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. J, Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T.T. Moni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Rakibul Islam, has prayed for granting him bail after he was arrested in connection with Sarthebari P.S. Case No. 64/2026 under Section 22©/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. As per the allegations reflected in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet, commercial quantity of Page No.# 2/2 codeine phosphate was recovered from the shop/house premises of the petitioner pursuant to the statement of the main accused, who was arrested and interrogated on the same day, i.e., on 07.07.2026.
4. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the furniture shop of the petitioner, from where the aforesaid contraband was recovered, is a large premises and the petitioner had no knowledge regarding the presence of the aforesaid contraband in his shop premises. Therefore, it cannot be said that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, submits that in view of the provisions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, it is for the petitioner to establish during the trial that the contraband was not in his conscious possession, since, prima facie, the recovery was made from his possession.
6. Having regard to the above, at this stage, this Court cannot come to a finding that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence of possession of commercial quantity of codeine phosphate. Hence, in view of the bar imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prayer for bail is rejected.
6. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant