Gauhati High Court
AB/1847/2026 of BILAL AHMED Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 23 August 2026
GAHC010168612026 2026:GAU-AS:12120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1847/2026 BILAL AHMED S/O LATE ABDUL JALILR/O VILLAGE NAGARIA P.S. PATHARKANDI P.O. PATHARKANDI PIN NO. 788724 DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM
GAHC010168612026
2026:GAU-AS:12120
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/1847/2026
BILAL AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL JALILR/O VILLAGE NAGARIA P.S. PATHARKANDI P.O.
PATHARKANDI PIN NO. 788724 DISTRICT SRIBHUMI ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M RAHMAN, R J OJAH,H AHMED,MD A RAHMAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
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 : 24.08.2026
Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Invoking Section 482 of the BNSS, the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 139 (arising out of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 139/2022) u/s 20(b)(ii)C/25/29 of NDPS Act.
3. The case arose out of an FIR 12.09.2022 about seizure of narcotic drugs in the nature of ganja of approximately 653 kgs, clearly falling in the bracket of commercial quantity (which for ganja is above 20 kgs). After completion of investigation, the case was charge sheeted and summons has been issued. It is submitted that, owing to the apprehension that he would be remanded to custody, he has preferred the instant anticipatory bail application. The learned counsel has referred to the decision of Mahdoom Bava vs. CBI, in SLP (Crl.) No. 376 of 2023. Paragraph 10 may be reproduced hereinbelow – “10. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. We must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these appeals.”
4. The scanned record, as called for, has not yet been received. However, the learned counsel submits at this stage that he may be given the liberty to approach the learned trial court for bail and upon such appearance, he may by allowed to take recourse to the provision of Section
91 of BNSS.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner shall file an application for bail before the learned trial court and upon doing so, necessary orders shall be passed on the same, keeping in mind all the factors.
6. The bail petition stands disposed on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant