VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Gauhati High Court 2024 › High Court of Gauhati

Md Najir Ansary and Anr v. The State of Assam

Disposed Of
Court
High Court of Gauhati
Decided
27 February 2024
Bench
S. Justice Malasri Nandiauthor
Case no.
Bail Appln. 3389/2023

Judgment

ORDER Date : 28.02.2024

Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3

¶2This is an application made under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail by the accused-petitioners, namely, Md. Najir Ansari and Md. Choto Ansari, in connection with NDPS Case No. 49(H)/2023(arising out of Lumding GRPS Case No. 06/2023), pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Hojai.

¶3The learned counsel for the accused/petitioners submits that the petitioners have been detained in custody since 15.01.2023. It is also submitted that the delay is occurred in proceeding of this case. Under such backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that considering the period of detention, bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶4On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Addl.P.P. has submitted that the charge has been framed on 27.07.2023. He further submitted that out of 8(eight) witnesses, 4(four) witnesses have already been examined. There is no delay in proceeding of the case. Considering the fact as well as the nature of the offence, bail may not be granted to the petitioners at this stage of trial.

¶5I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the scanned copy of LCR including the statement of the witnesses recorded so far.

¶6It appears that both the accused persons were arrested on

15.01.2023. Subsequently, charge-sheet has been submitted on 03.07.2023. Accordingly, charge was framed on 27.07.2023. It also appears that out 8(eight) witnesses, 4(four) witnesses have already been examined. Apparently, there is no delay in proceeding of the case. Page No.# 3/3

¶7In view of the above, it appears that the trial is about to complete within a short period. Situated thus, interference by this Court is not permissible at this stage.

¶8Hence, prayer for bail is rejected. However, endeavor is made by the trial court to dispose of the matter early.

¶9In view of above, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010205572023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3389/2023 MD NAJIR ANSARY AND ANR S/O MD. BASIR ANSARY R/O VILL- NAV WATALLY P.S. PRIOAINTY DIST. BHAGALPUR, BIHAR, (INDIA) 2: MD. CHOTO ANSARI S/O LT. JIAUL HOQUE R/O VILL- NAVWATALLY P.S. PRIOAINTY DIST. BHAGALPUR BIHAR (INDIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY APP, STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.