Gauhati High Court
Samad Ali vs The State Of Assam on 3 June, 2022
Author: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Bench: Rumi Kumari Phukan
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010105052022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1258/2022
SAMAD ALI
S/O LATE LATIF ALI
R/O KHABAM MANTRI
P.S. HAENGNAI
DIST. EMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN
ORDER
03.06.2022.
By filing this petition under Section 439 of the CrPC, petitioner Samad Ali has prayed for releasing him on regular bail in connection with the NDPS Case No.10/2022, under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
Heard the learned counsels for both sides and perused the record.
The prayer for bail, that has been preferred before the learned trial Court has been rejected.
Page No.# 2/2 Hence the present petition has been preferred for regular bail.
The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 07.12.2021 and now the charge sheet has been laid against him and the learned trial Court framed the charge on 14.02.2022. On 25.04.2022, the petitioner preferred an interim bail application before the learned trial Court on the ground of pregnancy of his wife and the learned trial Court has allowed him to go on interim bail for one month and thereafter the accused/petitioner surrendered before the learned trial Court on 24.05.2022, with a prayer for extending the interim bail, which was however not allowed by the learned trial Court, vide Annexure-3 to 5 (the relevant orders of the learned trial Court).
It appears that the evidence has not yet started and the case is at the evidence stage.
From the conduct of the petitioner, it appears that he duly availed the interim bail and surrendered before the trial Court after such interim bail. The petitioner submits that he will appear before the learned trial Court regularly, without hampering the trial and his bail is necessary as he is the sole bread earner of the family having wife, old aged parents and minor children. The case is also not relates to commercial quantity and the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is also not attracted.
Considering all entirety of the matter and particularly the conduct and the undertaking given by the accused/ petitioner, it can be inferred that he will not jump over the bail and will face the trial regularly.
Accordingly the accused petitioner, named above is allowed to go on regular bail of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, with strict direction to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court regularly and in any willful default without genuine ground may entail the rejection of bail.
The bail petition stands allowed accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant