Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1186/2026 of YUMNAM RAJESH SINGH ALIAS RAJESH YUMNAM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 7 June 2026
GAHC010088512026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1186/2026 YUMNAM RAJESH SINGH ALIAS RAJESH YUMNAM S/O YUMNAM GULAPI SINGH A RESIDENT OF VILL.- ITHAI KHUNOU, IMPHAIL, P.S.- KUMBI, DIST.- BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR,
GAHC010088512026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1186/2026
YUMNAM RAJESH SINGH ALIAS RAJESH YUMNAM
S/O YUMNAM GULAPI SINGH A RESIDENT OF VILL.- ITHAI KHUNOU, IMPHAIL, P.S.- KUMBI, DIST.- BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR, INDIA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A I HUSSAIN, MD A 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
08.06.2026 Heard Mr. M.A.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned APP for the State. The TCR have been received.
The petitioner was arrested on 08.09.2025 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 752/2025, which has culminated in NDPS Case No. 13/2026, pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup (M), wherein charge has been framed under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The charge-sheet was submitted on 18.12.2025 and charges were framed on 17.02.2026. Thereafter, the trial has not progressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the presence of the petitioner at the place of seizure of the contraband is disputed and therefore, he deserves the privilege of bail at this stage. It has further been submitted that although the matter was fixed on three different dates after framing of the trial has not proceeded any further. The learned APP has submitted that the alleged recovery involves a commercial quantity of heroin and that the relevant materials on record indicate that the petitioner was apprehended at the time of seizure. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the privilege of bail ought not to be granted to the petitioner at this stage of the trial. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP. Having regard to the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed therein. Accordingly, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant