Gauhati High Court
Crl.Rev.P./56/2026 of ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK ALIAS SANJAB Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 25 August 2026
GAHC010026012026 2026:GAU-AS:12271 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./56/2026 ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK ALIAS SANJAB S/O- SURMAN ALI VILL- BHATIPARA, MAJER ALGA PS- JOGIGHOPA DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010026012026
2026:GAU-AS:12271
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./56/2026
ABU BAKKAR SIDDIK ALIAS SANJAB
S/O- SURMAN ALI VILL- BHATIPARA, MAJER ALGA PS- JOGIGHOPA DIST- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM.
2:SRI BINNAY MALAKAR
S/O- GAGAN MALAKAR I/C
GERUKABARI POLICE POST UNDER MANIKPUR POLICE STATION
MANIKPUR
DIST- BONGAIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR. H ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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 : 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present petition has been filed praying for interference with the order dated 27.11.2025 passed Page No.# 2/2 by the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon in Special (Nar) Case No.56(M)/2024, in so far as the prayer of the petitioner for zimma of Rs.2 lac seized vide MR No.167/2022 in connection with Manikpur P.S. Case No.193/2022 under Section 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the money which has been seized and zimma of which sought is unconnected and had been earned by the petitioner by selling the cattle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he is under instruction that the petitioner is ready to furnish the bank guarantee for the amount issued, in case, the aforesaid amount is released to him and at the later stage, the money is found to be connected in any manner with the trade of contraband drug.
5. The report from the I.O produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the investigating agency have no objection to release of the said amount on zimma if the accused person is able to satisfactorily establish the lawful and genuine source of the said amount by verifiable documental evidence. The report is kept as a kept as part of the record.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court to verify, if so required, the different money receipts which may be produced by the petitioner and thereafter, the decision may be arrived at as to whether the bank guarantee will suffice for the release of the seized money.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parries, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner be granted liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court bringing on record the manner in which money had been earned by the petitioner and further to place the proposed bank guarantee before the learned Court.
8. On receipt of the application, the learned trial Court shall take into consideration the veracity of the money receipt produced and the bank guarantee and thereafter consider granting zimma of the aforesaid amount of the petitioner. Criminal revision petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant