Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010160822025 2025:GAU-AS:13444 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2368/2025 PRANAB MAHANTA SON OF LATE PADMA MAHANTA RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 5D, S.K. BHUYAN ROAD, DIGHALIPUKHURI, P.S. LATASIL, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-783580. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A.K Bhuyan, Ld. Sr. Advocate Advocate for the respondent: Mr. B Sharma, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA Date of Hearing : 24.09.2025. Date of Judgment : 26.09.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (C.A.V) Page No.# 2/6 Date : 26.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.K Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the petitioner Sri. Pranab Mahanta who is in custody since 04.07.2025 in connection with Boko P.S Case No. 224/2025 under Section 61(2)(b) of the BNS, 2023 R/W Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 R/W Section 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 R/W Section 18/39(2) of the UA(P) Act, 1967. 3. The facts of the case are that on the basis of GDE entry no. 30 dated 03.07.2025, an FIR was lodged on 03/07/2025 at 8 PM by one Sanchayeeta Chetia (WSI(P)) at the Boko Police Station alleging inter alia that source information was received by City Police, Guwahati that huge amount of illegal arms and ammunition was stored in Farm house premises of one Pranab Mahanta S/O Late Padma Mahanta at Borpara, under P.S. Boko. Based on the specific input a team led by Sri Kulendra Nath Deka, APS, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operation) City Guwahati and Police party from Boko P.S., carried out a raid in the farmhouse premises of the accused Pranab Mahanta on 03/07/2025 at around 1:30 A.M. During search apprehended 03(three) persons at the farmhouse premises of Pranab Mahanta who identified themselves as (1) Shri Amrit Ali (35 years) S/O Late Sunil Ahmed R/O Vill - Borduwarpara, P.S.- Palashbari (2) Shri Kertu Rabha (19) S/O Kunju Rabha R/O Vill - Chakrashila, P.S. Boko (3) Shibojit Boro (19) S/O Niren Boro R/O Village Baghmara P.S. Boko. All the apprehended persons are workers of Pranab Mahanta and at present residing inside his farmhouse premises at Borpara. And during search recovered the following articles: (i) One factory made 9 mm Pistol (Fire arms) with loaded Magazine having 5rds. of live ammunition. Company: NORINCO, made in China, Body No. Para.101909 (Recovered from the possession of KertuRabha and Shibojit Boro) (ii) One .380 Revolver (Fire Arms) loaded with 01 rds. of live ammunition.Butt No. 322, Page No.# 3/6 Smith & Wesson Company made. (Recovered from the possession of Amrit Ali) (iii) 142nos. of 7.62 x 39 mm live ammunition suspected to be used in AK series Assault rifles. (iv) 05 nos. KYNOCH 500 NITRO EXPRESS live cartridges. (v) One tin made sealed container suspected to have explosive substances. Weight 3.537 kg. (vi) 04 nos. 5.56 mm live ammunition suspected to be used in Insas rifle. Articles nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 recovered on being lead and showed by the three apprehended workers of Pranab Mahanta, kept concealed inside the factory equipments present inside closed factory building in the premises of the farm house. All the recovered Arms, ammunition suspected explosive substances seized at the P.O. observing necessary formalities in presence local witnesses. After that, on through interrogation of the apprehended persons they stated that they work under Pranab Mahanta and the recovered fire arms were provided to them by Pranab Mahanta for duty and the recovered Ammunitions, suspected explosive substances were kept concealed as per direction of accused Pranab Mahanta. Under the above facts and circumstances, it is suspected that the abovementioned accused persons have collected and stored the recovered Arms, Ammunition and suspected explosive substances from black market to supply them to some proscribed/banned organization under UA(P) Act by Government to support them, following a conspiracy to commit some serious offence causing loss to human life and property. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner at the very outset that the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated on account of the fact that he was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest/detention by the police. The petitioner is a resident of Dighalipukhuri under Latasil Police Station, Kamrup(M) and police came to his residence at 3:00 AM on 03.07.2025 and thereafter, at 6:00 AM, on the basis of a hand-written search warrant, conducted search in his residential premises and recovered a licensed pistol of the petitioner which was taken into custody but no seizure list was furnished. The petitioner was taken to Latasil Police Station where he was detained for the whole day and in the evening, police from Boko Police Station Page No.# 4/6 came to Latasil Police Station and took him to Boko Police Station whereafter he was produced before the Ld. Magistrate at Boko on 04.07.2025 at around 3:40 PM. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has been detained for more than 24 hours before being produced before the Ld. Magistrate and moreover, the requirement of producing him before the nearest Magistrate at Guwahati has also been flouted in the instant case. In this regard, Mr. A.K Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Kerala High Court in Biswajit Mandal V. Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau and Another 2025:KER:60624 wherein it was held that the period of 24 hours to produce an accused before the Ld. Magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed. 5. Reference has also been placed on the decision of this High Court in Kamal Dutta v. Union of India WP(Crl.) No. 07/2014 dated 05.11.2015 wherein it was held that the act of the police in not producing the accused before the nearest Magistrate upon his arrest and producing him before the Magistrate in another district without obtaining any transit remand is illegal and unconstitutional. 6. Mr. A.K Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the additional affidavit submitted in the instant case, has referred to the CCTV footage submitted in a pen drive accompanied by the necessary certificate wherefrom it would be ascertainable that the factual aspects with regard to the detention of the petitioner at the stated time, as claimed by the petitioner, is correct. 7. A perusal of the Case Diary reveals that in the seizure list relating to Latasil PS GD Entry No. 04 dated 03.07.2025 shows the date and time of seizure as 5:40 AM on 03.07.2025 and the place of seizure being the house of the petitioner. However, the petitioner has been shown as having been arrested on the next date at Boko P.S. But, there is no explanation as to how the petitioner turned up at Boko P.S without receiving any notice from the police which fact creates serious doubt with regard to Page No.# 5/6 the claim that the petitioner was arrested only on 04.07.2025. Prima facie, the version of the petitioner appears to the Court to be correct, in which event the arrest/detention of the petitioner appears to be prima facie illegal and violative of the constitutional provisions under Article 22 thereof. 8. Moreover, although provisions of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 namely Section 18/39(2) thereof has been incorporated in the FIR, a perusal of the Case Diary does not reveal any such material so as to attract the said provisions and consequently the bar of Section 43(D)(5) of the UA(P) Act, 1967 which severely curtails the right of the accused to bail is not attracted, a fact fairly conceded by the prosecution. With regard to the provisions of the Arms Act, namely Sections 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act, and Section 5 of the Exclusive Substances Act, in the absence of any forensic report/Armourer Report being available in the available in the Case Diary, it cannot be said that the arms allegedly seized from the farm house/factory of the petitioner at Boko were prohibited weapons as defined under Section 2(i) of the Arms Act. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, as also the fact that the petitioner has spent about 82 days in detention, the prayer for bail is allowed. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner Sri. Pranab Mahanta shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with 2(two) sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Elaka Magistrate. It is further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner. 11. The petition stands allowed. 12. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant