Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1935/2026 of RABIUL HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 15 September 2026
GAHC010145182026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Bail Appln./1935/2026 RABIUL HUSSAIN S/O- HIKMAT ALI KHAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOUKHARI POLICE STATION BARPETA DISTRICT- BARPETA ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------
GAHC010145182026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Bail Appln./1935/2026
RABIUL HUSSAIN
S/O- HIKMAT ALI KHAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MOUKHARI
POLICE STATION BARPETA
DISTRICT- BARPETA
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. R ALI
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF 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 : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, 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, namely, Rabiul Hussain, has prayed for granting them bail after he was arrested on 09.06.2026 in connection with Barpeta P.S. Case No.170/2026 under Sections 21(b)/22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not present at the time of recovery and all the arrested accused namely Safikul was present at that time and hence no recovery can be said to have been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that it is apparent from the FIR and other materials on record that the recovery was made from the bed room of the petitioner where the contraband was kept concealed and the absence of the petitioner would make no difference, more so, as the recovery was so made in the presence of the independent witnesses.
5. It is further submitted that from the aforesaid materials, it also transpires that upon arrival of the police, the petitioner fled from his house, because of which, he could not be apprehended at that time.
6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and consideration of the materials on record and in view of the fact that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the bed room of the petitioner, the bar of Section 37 of NDPS Act is squarely attracted and the same has not been overcome in the facts and circumstance of the present case.
7. Considering the same, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. Bail application stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant