Nabijul Islam And Anr. vs State Of Assam

The Court proceedings have been conducted through remote video conferencing mode due to the prevailing situation in the State due to Covid-19

pandemic.

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Begum, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State of Assam.

By this application under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the petitioners viz. 1) Nabijul Islam and 2) Saidul Islam have

approached this Court seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail, apprehending their arrest, in connection with Goalpara River Police Station Case No.

01/2021 registered for offences punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are fishermen and they have no connection with the poppy plants cultivation

alleged to have been destroyed by the Officer In-charge, Goalpara River Police Station with the assistance of the local people Uchungar Char area on

25.01.2021. At the time of such destruction, none of the two petitioners was present and they have sought to be implicated in the case merely on

suspicion.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that she has received the case diary and has gone through the materials available therein,

collected during the course of investigation carried out so far. It has been submitted by her that apart from the Investigating Officer, who is an

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, at least 3 nos. of independent witnesses have stated that the two petitioners who are brothers, are behind the

cultivation of poppy plants cultivation in the said concerned plot of land.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have taken note of the materials stated to be available in the case diary,

on the basis of the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Considering the fact that independent witnesses have mentioned that the petitioners were behind the cultivation of poppy plants in the said plot of land

which were destroyed on 25.01.2021 in presence of witnesses, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest

bail under Section 438, CrPC to the two petitioners. Consequently, this bail application for pre-arrest bail stands rejected.