Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2367/2026 of SAPAN UDDIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 1 September 2026
GAHC010173662026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2367/2026 SAPAN UDDIN S/O LATE SEKH MOTHY MOTOI R/O VILLAGE - UMARPUR PART- I P.S.- BADARPUR, .O. UMARPUR, PIN - 788806 DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010173662026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2367/2026
SAPAN UDDIN
S/O LATE SEKH MOTHY MOTOI R/O VILLAGE - UMARPUR PART- I P.S.- BADARPUR, .O. UMARPUR, PIN - 788806 DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N C DAS, J BAISHYA,MR. A DAS
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 : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Baishya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting regular bail to the petitioner, namely, Sapan Uddin, in connection with Special
(NDPS) Case No. 40/2026 arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 11/2026, registered under Sections 22(C)/ 25/ 29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The prosecution case as per the allegation is that on the basis of an information received on 28.01.2026, at about 11.20 a.m., a search was carried out in the residence of the petitioner and in course of such search 8,000/- suspected Yaba Tablets (Methamphetamine) were recovered and seized in presence of the independent witnesses and the petitioner was taken into custody.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 09.07.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, Shribhumi in Special (N) Case No. 40/2026, rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner wherein it has been recorded that there is discrepancy with regard to the time of receipt of the secret information as stated in the FIR against what has been stated in the General Diary Entry. However, the learned Court, despite recording the aforesaid discrepancy rejected the bail application of the petitioner.
5. It is not disputed that the information itself was recorded in writing and the dispute is with regard to the discrepancy as regard the time of the receipt of the information. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said discrepancy resulted violation of the provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which entitled to the petitioner to get bail.
6. The scanned copy of the TCR including the extract of the GD Entry have been received and perused.
7. A perusal of the said GE Entry, reveals that the time of receipt of the information is recorded as 11.20 a.m. in the body of the GD Entry. The discrepancy alleged is only with regard to the time recorded on the top of the G.D. Entry in the column meant for entry of the date and time which could not have been a typographical or clerical error.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same is not sufficient to enable the Court to arrive at the satisfaction that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence of possession of the commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances so as to satisfy the requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
9. In view of the above, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
10. The bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant