Bail Appln./717/2026 of JOYNAL UDDIN ALIAS JOYNAL HUSSAIN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 August 2026

O R D E R

25.08.2026

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2. Invoking 483 BNSS, the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 60/2025, which is pending before the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi. The petitioner was arrested on 22.05.2025. The aforesaid special case arose out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 250/2025 under Section 21(c)/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. The allegation in the FIR was that based on a source information, a search operation was undertaken on the basis of information about drugs being carried in a vehicle/truck bearing registration no. AS-26-AC-0816, which was escorted by another vehicle AS-26-AC-0664, travelling from Badarpur to Patharkandi via Sribhumi bypass. During the naka checking, the targeted vehicle AS-26-AC-0816 was intercepted along with the other vehicle and a search operation was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. The search revealed 110 number of soap cases containing suspected heroin weighing 1,236.35 grams. It was stated that the said suspected heroin was concealed in the body of the vehicle, which was being driven by the Joynal Uddin @ Joynal Hussain. The investigation of the case resulted in a charge-sheet and registration of the special case and which is stated to be at the stage of trial.

4. The learned counsel, Mr. Ahmed, submits that the petitioner was detained in the morning hours and by the time he was produced before the learned Magistrate, the time period of 24 hours had already exceeded. It is also pointed out that in the arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS, the signature of witnesses was not taken.

5. The scanned TCR is available and I perused the relevant materials therefrom.

6. With regard to heroin, the stipulated commercial quantity is quantity above 250 grams. Therefore, clearly the alleged quantity in the instant case falls way above the stipulated commercial quantity.

7. I have perused the seizure memo one of which is at 2:00 PM and the other at 3:35 PM. As per the notice under Section 36 of the BNSS, the time of arrest is indicated as 11:30 PM.

8. I perused the seizure memos annexed with the bail petition. The relevant portions of the case record have been gone through including the statements of the two seizure witnesses, both of whom have stated about being participant in the search operation during which the alleged contraband was discovered and seized. They have stated that the seized drugs were found in cartons, which were sealed with Laah.

9. I have perused the inventory documents pertaining to the seizure and sampling. I have also perused the remand order dated 22.052025. I have perused the grounds of arrest enumerated in the notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. I have perused the seizure list enumerating in detail the seized materials. The quantity of the suspected heroin is stated to be 1 kg 236 grams.

10. Upon perusing the entire materials, the Court is unable to opine that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused persons are not guilty. Therefore, the statutory Bar under Section 37 would be applicable at this stage and the bail cannot be granted in view of the said restrictions. Accordingly, the instant bail petition stands rejected at this stage. However, the learned trial Court shall endeavour to expeditiously complete the trial.

11. The bail petition is dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant