Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2353/2026 of MUSTAKIN ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 25 August 2026
GAHC010172792026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2353/2026 MUSTAKIN ALI S/O ISHA ALI VILLAGE - SATGAON SUKTAGURI, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
GAHC010172792026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2353/2026
MUSTAKIN ALI
S/O ISHA ALI
VILLAGE - SATGAON SUKTAGURI, P.S.- BAIHATA CHARIALI, DISTRICT - KAMRUP, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M 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 : 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. N. Uddin, 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, Mustakin Ali, has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No.166/2026 under Section 21(b)/29 of NDPS Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contraband is alleged to have been recovered during the body search of the petitioner. He has also referred to two earlier orders of this Court passed in Bail Appln. No. 1952/2026 and Bail Appln. No. 2194/2026, wherein this Court has held that the notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act served upon the petitioners therein, were defective and, accordingly, the petitioners therein were granted the privilege of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that similar notices have been served upon the present petitioner and that such notices do not meet the requirement of law. Therefore, the petitioner, at this stage, would be entitled to the privilege of bail.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the recovery of the contraband has been made from the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner may not be granted bail at this stage.
6. Upon perusal the materials available on record, this Court notices that the contents of the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, stated to have been served upon the petitioner, do not satisfy the requirement of law. Since the recovery of the contraband has been shown from the body search of the petitioner, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the search of the body of the petitioner cannot be said to have been conducted in accordance with the requirement of law.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the privilege of bail, particularly taking into consideration the period of detention of the petitioner, which is 49 days as on date, and the fact that the contraband recovered is of intermediate quantity.
8. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with a local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
9. The learned Special Judge shall be at liberty to impose any other condition as may be considered necessary to ensure the cooperation of the petitioner in the further investigation.
10. Bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant