Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010245082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3611/2025 MANNAN MIYA S/O FAZAL MIYA. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- GOMA. P.O. GOMA, PS TARABARI. DISTRICT OF BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM. 2:DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE (CUSTOM) REP. BY RETAINER COUNSE Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS. M KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CUSTOMS, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ali, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the DRI. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/3 Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for granting regular bail to the accused/applicant in connection with DRI Case No. 14/CL/IMP/PS & CIG/DRI/GZU/2025-26 dated 24.09.2025 under Sections 110, 104 & 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. An FIR was lodged on 26.09.2025 alleging that from the possession of the accused/applicant, 11,90,000 sticks of foreign-brand cigarettes and 9,014 kilograms of poppy seeds, suspected to be smuggled goods worth several crores, were recovered. Upon receipt of the said FIR, DRI Case No. 14/CL/IMP/PS & CIG/DRI/GZU/2025-26 was registered against the accused/applicant. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/applicant that the applicant has already spent 56 days in judicial custody and that a formal complaint has not been filed in the instant matter. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned counsel submits that, considering the length of detention, the accused/applicant may be released on bail. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the DRI submits that the complaint is yet to be filed; however, the DRI opposes the grant of bail to the accused/applicant at this stage. 6. This Court has gone through the materials placed before it and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties. Taking into account the fact that the accused/applicant has already undergone 56 days of judicial custody, whereas the mandatory detention period under the statute is 60 days, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/applicant is entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused/applicant shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- Page No.# 3/3 with one surety of a like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), subject to the following conditions: (i) The accused/applicant shall cooperate fully with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating authority as and when required. (ii) The accused/applicant shall not attempt to influence, obstruct, or tamper with the investigation in the instant case. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant