Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010138592025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./760/2025 ANJAR HUSSAIN ANJAR HUSSAIN, S/O. LT. JUNAID ALI, R/O. VILL.- JURIA, P/S. JURIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A RAHMAN, SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,A W AMAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Anjar Hussain impugning the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Nagaon in Nagaon P.S. Case No. 1156/2024 whereby the period of detention of the present petitioner was extended beyond Page No.# 2/5 the period of 180 days under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 1156/2024 under Sections 61(2)/123 of BNS read with Sections 21(a)/25/27(a)/29 with added Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. He submits that since the commercial quantity of contraband and Section 21(c) was involved in the aforesaid case, the statutory period of detention under Section 36A is 180 days in this case. He, however, submits that on 177th day, the Public Prosecutor had filed an application for extension of the said period for another 180 days. By the impugned order dated 03.06.2025, the said prayer was allowed and the period of detention of the petitioner was further extended to 180 days more. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Proviso to Section 36A (4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, the period of detention of an accused who is detained behind the bars for 180 days may be extended on a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for such extension of the detention period beyond 180 days. He, however, submits that the Apex Court in the case of “Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in “(1994) 4 SCC 602” has clarified that at the time of considering the application for extension of the period of detention in case of a detenu under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), the issuance of a notice to the said detenu was read into the provisions of Section 20(4) of the TADA. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 20(4) of the TADA is in pari materia with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the Page No.# 3/5 same has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of “Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.” reported in “(2009) 17 SCC 631”. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that later on the Apex Court in the case of “Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay” reported in “(1994) 5 SCC 410”has clarified that the requirement of written notice is though not there under Section 20(4) of the TADA, however, the requirement of notice may be fulfilled if the accused is produced before the Court when such an application for extension of his detention is considered. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the provision of Section 20(4) of the TADA is in pari materia with provision of Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, hence, at the time of considering the prayer for extension of detention beyond 180 days, at least production of the accused person is necessary. However, he submits that in the instant case when the application for extension of period of detention was filed and when the impugned order was passed neither notice was given to the petitioner nor he was personally produced before the Court at that time, therefore, he submits that the impugned order is in violation of the proposition of law as expounded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid rulings and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submits that from the materials available on record and from bare perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that on the date when the application for extension of period of detention of the petitioner was filed by the Public Page No.# 4/5 Prosecutor, the petitioner was not produced before the Court neither he was produced before the Court on the day when the impugned order was passed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission. 10. The law regarding compliance of principles of natural justice at the time of consideration of an application under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for extension of period of detention beyond 180 days has been clarified by the Apex Court in the cases cited above. 11. It also appears that though the Apex Court, in the case of Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay” (supra) has diluted the requirement of giving written notice to the accused at the time of consideration of an application for extension of his detention, however, it has been observed that the production of an accused at the time of filing of the application for extension of period of detention as well as consideration of such an application is necessary. 12. In the instant case, bare perusal of the impugned order as well as the order sheets available in the record would show that the petitioner was not produced before the Court on 02.06.2025 when the application for extension of detention period was filed by the Public Prosecutor. Neither he was produced on 03.06.2025 when the impugn order was passed in this case. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the cases cited herein above, Page No.# 5/5 namely, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra”(supra), Sanjay Dutt Vs. State through CBI, Bombay” (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau and Anr.” (supra). 13. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order by which the period of detention of the present petitioner was extended beyond the period of 180 days in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court is liable to be set aside. 14. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and this criminal petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant