Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2349/2026 of ABDUL HANNAN CHOUDHURY ALIAS HANNAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 2 September 2026
GAHC010172842026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2349/2026 ABDUL HANNAN CHOUDHURY ALIAS HANNAN SON OF LATE ABDUL LATIF CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE EAST KANISHAIL, POLICE STATION - SRIBHUMI, DISTRICT -
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010172842026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2349/2026
ABDUL HANNAN CHOUDHURY ALIAS HANNAN
SON OF LATE ABDUL LATIF CHOUDHURY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE EAST
KANISHAIL, POLICE STATION - SRIBHUMI, DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MR. V A CHOWDHURY,MS. C CHOUDHURY
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
03.09.2026
Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.
2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Abdul Hannan Choudhury @ Hannan, praying for grant of bail in connection with Sribhumi P.S. Case No.153/2026 under Sections 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act.
Page No.# 2/2
3. As per allegations made in the FIR 9800 numbers of suspected YABA tablets were recovered from the person of the petitioner which amounts to commercial quantity.
4. The only submission of the learned senior counsel is that although it is stated in the FIR that notice under Section 50 was issued to the petitioner before body search, but as per instructions no such notice was in fact issued.
5. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor with reference from the case diary submits that said notice was issued to the petitioner and is available in the case diary and the perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was given the option to be searched before the Magistrate or a gazette officer and hence, there was due compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
6. In view of the above, prayer for bail stands rejected and application stands disposed of.
7. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant