Gauhati High Court
Abdul Hasim Khan @ Md Abdul Hasib Khan vs The State Of Assam on 12 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010186812024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2748/2024
ABDUL HASIM KHAN @ MD ABDUL HASIB KHAN
S/O ABDUL MALIK, R/O DASGRAM PART II, P.S.-NILAMBAZAR, DIST-
KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
12.03.2025
1. Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner Abdul Hasim Khan @ Md. Abdul Hasib Khan.
2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 30.03.2023 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 24/2023 arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 92/2023 under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of Page No.# 2/3 the NDPS Act.
3. Also heard MS. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court but his prayer for bail has been rejected. The contraband which tantamounts to 1.562 kgs of heroin was recovered from the conscious possession of Md. Abdul Kalam and Md. Shaju Mohammad-the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner was not present at the time when the Tata Intra vehicle bearing registration No. AS 11 EC 2082 was intercepted.
5. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 2 years. Trial has not yet commenced. It is only because of the abscondance of the co-accused, the trial is procrastinating. The petitioner's incarceration without trial tantamounts to infringement of his right to personal liberty. It is also submitted that as 15 witnesses have been enlisted, conclusion of trial appears to be remote.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that charge-sheet clearly reveals that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be incarcerated solely on the statements of the co-accused, cannot be accepted at this stage as charge-sheet has been laid against him. Trial has commenced now. This case against the absconding accused has been split up and separated.
8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. It is true that on finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, charge-sheet was laid against him. This is a case of transportation of 1.562 kgs of heroin, wherein charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act restricts his bail at this stage. It cannot be considered at this juncture that the petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed despite the fact that trial has been progressing at a snail's pace.
9. Considering all aspects, petition with prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a subsequent bail application if trial is procrastinated any further.
10. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trail for speedy disposal of this case.
JUDGE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant