Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Crl.)/18/2026 of MD. SADDAM HUSSAIN AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 12 July 2026
GAHC010137462025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/18/2026 MD. SADDAM HUSSAIN AND ANR S/O. LT. SAIFUL ISLAM PERMANENT R/O. VILL.- MOIRABARI PATHIKBARI P/S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM. 2: BIMAL TOSSA S/O. SRI
GAHC010137462025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/18/2026
MD. SADDAM HUSSAIN AND ANR
S/O. LT. SAIFUL ISLAM
PERMANENT R/O. VILL.- MOIRABARI PATHIKBARI
P/S. MOIRABARI
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM.
2: BIMAL TOSSA
S/O. SRI JIBON TOSSA
VILL.- GHARIALDUBI
P/S. BOKAJAN
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ASSAM
2:SI HAOKAM CHANGSAN
S/O/ MR. KHUPSEH CHANGSAN
SI OF POLICE BOKAJAN POLICE STATION
DIST. KARBI ANGLONG
------------
Advocate for : MR. M AHMED
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
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
13.07.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J)
1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This is an application under Section 430 BNSS for suspending the operation of the sentence dated 25.04.2025 passed in NDPS Case No.13/2022 by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu, on being convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, vide judgment dated 23.04.2025.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants having been convicted and sentenced under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 (twelve) years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), in default simple imprisonment for 1 (one) year, the applicants who have undergone imprisonment for 4 (four) years 8 (eight) months, should be released on bail after suspension of the sentence, in terms of Section 436A Cr.P.C, which is equivalent to Section 479 BNSS.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the seizure of heroin weighed 1.777 kg and that half of the sentence period has not been completed by the applicants.
5. On considering the fact that the applicants have not completed half of the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and also keeping in view the fact that the seized heroin was 1.777 kg, we are not inclined to allow the present application. Further, in the case of State of Punjab vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.896/2026], the Supreme Court has held that the condition imposed under Section 37 NDPS Act are mandatory for grant of bail, involving commercial quantity of drugs. It further held that the period of long incarceration in jail cannot be a ground to grant bail, unless the provisions under Section 37 NDPS Act are made out. In the present case, the conditions for bail under Section 37 NDPS Act are not made out at this stage. Further, the main appeal has been fixed for hearing on 09.09.2026.
6. In view of the above reasons, the application stands dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant