Bail Appln./641/2026 of MANIRUZ ZAMAN ALIAS MONIRUZ ZAMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 6 May 2026

ORDER

07.05.2026

1. Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Maniruz Zaman @ Moniruz Zaman, praying for grant of bail in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No.348/2025 corresponding to GR No. 1224/2025 under Sections 22(C) of NDPS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his primary contentions are that the notices under Section 47/48 of the BNSS were not complied with at the time of arresting of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that on the said technical grounds of procedural infirmities, co-accused was granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on 1/12/2025 in BA 3607/2025.

4. The scanned record has been available.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submits that the aforesaid contention of the defense is not based on correct instruction as the statutory requirements have been complied with at the time of arrest.

6. I find the copies of the arrest memo and notices under Section 47/48 BNSS and I find that the grounds of arrest in English and Assamese are in reasonable detail and the notice under Section 48 BNSS also bears the signature of the relative. Therefore, as far as the procedural compliance is there, there appears to be no infirmity therein.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor upon perusing the relevant portion of the scanned TCR fairly submits that he found incriminating statements of the co-accused about the involvement of the petitioner as well in dealing with drugs.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor objects in granting of bail by submitting that the contraband falls under commercial quantity and it has been recovered from the house of the petitioner and husband.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel that co-accused Imzazul Hoque from whom recovery was made granted bail by this Court for non- compliance with Section 47/48 of BNSS. Considering the penal provisions of NDPS Act involved, the applicability of Section 37 has to be seen.

10. In the context of fair submission of the Prosecution that the materials against the present petitioner are the incriminating statements of the co-accused - therefore, in terms of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, I am of the considered view that the test of Section 37 can be said to be passed in favour of the petitioner.

11. It is well settled that even if such a test is passed in favour of the petitioner, the other factors have to be seen and if some or more of these factors militate against grant of bail in the circumstances, the bail can still be refused.

12. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the petitioner has been in custody 3/9/2025 and co-accused/her husband has been granted bail, though on technical grounds. The case is at the stage of trial.

13. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.50,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall co-operate with the trial and shall appear before the trial court as and when required by the Trial Court.

(b) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts from the trial pending against the accused-applicant;

(c) shall not leave the jurisdiction of Dhubri without prior consent from the learned Trial Court.

14. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

15. Return the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant