Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010219192025 2025:GAU-AS:17280 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3202/2025 JAHANGIR ALOM CHOUDHURY SON OF FARUK AHMED CHOUDHURY, R/O VILLAGE MAIZGRAM, WARD NO 10, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MISS. P M AHMED,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 12.12.2025 Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for granting bail to the applicant, namely, Sri Jahangir Alom Page No.# 2/8 Choudhury, in connection with Karimganj PS Case No. 319/2025, registered under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS, 1985. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant of the present case, who is a Sub-Inspector, namely, M Nganthoiba Singha of Karimganj Police Station lodged an ejahar on 07.07.2025 before the Karimganj Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that on 06.07.2025, at about 12:30 am, at night, an information was received through the OC, Karimganj Police Station that a person, namely, Jahangir Alom Choudhury, i.e., the petitioner herein, and his wife were dealing and selling illegal substances and accordingly, vide Karimganj PS GDE No. 30 dated 06.07.2025, the petitioner was brought to the Police Station for interrogation and during interrogation he reveals that he and his wife used to sell banned substances. Thereafter, the informant was authorized to conduct search and seizure operation, and the informant proceeded to the house of the petitioner along with him. On reaching the house, the informant found that the house was locked from outside. The informant then called two people to witness the search and when the house was searched, 10 numbers of small blue coloured packets were found which allegedly contained suspected Yaba tablets. The articles were then seized and the informant along with his staffs departed from the place along with the petitioner. On receipt of the ejahar, the same was registered as Karimganju PS Case No. 319/2025, under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and investigation was started. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of the FIR, on the same day, i.e., on 07.07.2025, the petitioner was produced before the learned CJM, Karimganj, with a prayer for 3 days Police remand, which was not allowed and the petitioner was forwarded to judicial custody and since then, i.e., on 07.07.2025, he has been languishing in jail. Page No.# 3/8 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed one bail application on 18.07.2025, in connection with the aforesaid PS Case, vide Petition No. 297, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, who took up the case on 29.08.2025, and after hearing both the sides, the learned Special Judge was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner filed one petition before the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, vide Petition No. 423 dated 28.07.2025, alleging, inter alia, that he never received any notice issued by the Police under Section 47 and Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, and that he is a literate person and when he obtained the certified copy of the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, he found the thumb impression was put by someone as father against the column- “Relationship with the arrested person”. It was contended by the father of the petitioner that he never put any thumb impression on any of the documents issued by the Police and the father prayed for a forensic examination of the thumb impression. The learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 02.09.2025, was pleased to forward the petition to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, for conducting a proper enquiry. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the documents annexed with the instant petition reveals that the records were manipulated so as to frame the petitioner in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested by the Police authorities without following the due process of law as well as the procedure laid down under the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 4/8 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, the Police did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which as per the Judgment of Vihan Kumar –Vs- The State of Haryana, which held that informing the near relatives of the accused at the earliest is mandatory but in the instant case although there is notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, but the said notice did not contain the signature of the father rather there is thumb impressions which was disputed by the father of the petitioner, and, hence for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Judgment rendered in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah –Vs- State of Maharashtra & Another; reported in 2025 INSC 1288, wherein it has been held that the Investigating Officer must serve the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, at least before 2 hours of production. He further submits that in such view of the matter, if it is assumed that notice was served prior to 2 hours of production then the accused petitioner was produced before the Magistrate after 03:30 pm on 07.07.2025, which was beyond 24 hours of his detention. In other words from the documents of the prosecution it is clear that the petitioner was produced after 36 hours of his detention which entitles him for bail by overriding the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in terms of the Judgment reported in AIRONLINE 2025 SC 355; in the case of Directorate of Enforcement –Vs- Subhash Sharma. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a local person having roots in the society and there is no chance of his absconding away from trial of the case and there no chances of his hampering and tampering with the evidence or witnesses if he is granted regular bail by Page No.# 5/8 this Hon’ble Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting him the privilege of bail. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the forensic laboratory reports regarding the fingerprint issue are still awaited and since the case diary had been returned, the updated Case Diary is also awaited. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the matter may be deferred for allowing the Additional Public Prosecutor to bring on record, the forensic laboratory report regarding the fingerprint tests being conducted and also to allow him to go through the updated Case Diary. This Court has noticed that the petitioner is behind bars since 07.07.2025. 11. The allegations leveled in the bail petition are to the extent that the petitioner was taken into custody in the intervening night of 05.06.2025, 6th of July, 2025 and, thereafter, having conducted a raid in his residence, the Police authorities had prepared an arrest memo showing him to have been arrested at around 01.30 pm on 07.07.2025 and, thereafter, had produced the petitioner before the learned remand Court on 07.07.2025 at about 3.30 pm. This Court notices that the investigating authority had forwarded a report to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam which was placed before this court which categorically records that the police authority had got information on 06.07.2025 and the accused person was brought to the Police Station at 03.30 am. After interrogation, the Police recovered the contraband articles on 07.07.2025 at 01:00 am and, thereafter, the complainant had filed the instant case and on the same day, it was registered. Page No.# 6/8 12. The accused was shown arrested on the same day and forwarded to the concerned remand Magistrate. On the basis of the report, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner was taken into custody at 3.30 am on 06.07.2025 and he was produced before the learned remand Magistrate at 03.30 pm on 07.07.2025. 13. The Apex Court had held in Directorate of Enforcement (supra), that the arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody without being produced before the nearest learned Magistrate. The Court further held that once a court while dealing with the bail application finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated, while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. 14. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. This Court notices that the allegations against the petitioner are to the extent that 198 grams of Yaba tablets had been recovered from the residence of the petitioner. 15. The production of the accused before the learned Magistrate had taken place after 24 hours and as per records it was nearly 36 hours after the apprehension of the accused that he was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate. Page No.# 7/8 16. Without going into the merit of the allegations as to whether the thumb impression of the father of the petitioner was given by the father of the petitioner or not, this Court, noticing the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India in this matter, is of the view that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal and is vitiated and bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of the strict provisions of the NDPS Act. The petitioner is accordingly found entitled to bail. This Court directs that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 100,000/- with 2 (two) suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, under the following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer of said Karimganj PS Case No. 319/2025 as and when he is required for necessary investigation; ii. That the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Karimganj Police Station, without obtaining prior written permission from the concerned Investigation Officer of the case; Page No.# 8/8 iii. That the petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation, or tamper with the evidence of the case; iv. That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and v. That the petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities in future. 16. In case of any violation of the aforesaid terms and conditions by the petitioner, the bail granted to him in the aforesaid Karimganj PS Case No. 319/2025 shall stand liable to be revoked. 17. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant