JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in respect of the accused/petitioner, namely, Sarjul Haque Tapadar @ Sarjul Hoque Tapadar, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 37/2025, which is pending before the court of learned Court of Special Judge, Sribhumi, arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 76/2025, under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 17.04.2025 an information was received by the Officer-In-Charge, of Badarpur Police Station, that two vehicle enroute from Silchar side to Sribhumi Via Badarpur, was suspected to be carrying substantial quantity of contrabands. Acting on the information an entry was made in General Diary Entry (GDE) No. 32, dated 17.04.2025, and thereafter a team was constituted and, Naka checking was set up near Sethi Flour Mill where the vehicles Bolero Pick-up bearing registration No. AS-01MC- 2851 which was driven by Yahiya Khan along with the other vehicle which was following the first vehicle, Bolero Camper without number plate driven by Sumon Uddin were intercepted and on being searched total 16 Kgs and 673 grams suspected Yaba tablets were recovered from Bolero Pick-up bearing registration no. AS-01MC-2851. Accordingly, FIR was registered as Badarpur P.S Case No. 76/2025 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, further registered as Special (NDPS) Case No. 37/2025. 6. The present petitioner was subsequently arrested after investigation revealed his role. 7. An earlier bail application on behalf of the present petitioner being Bail Application No. 1887 of 2025 was rejected by order dated 04.09.2025 on finding sufficient material against him in the CD. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant application has taken a new ground, which is violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested at 3:30 a.m on 21.04.2025 from his residence at Ranigram, Sribhumi whereafter, he was taken to Badarpur Police Station and subsequently produced before the Court at 2:30 p.m on 22.04.2025, at Sribhumi. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested at 3:30 a.m on 21.04.2025 from his residence at Ranigram, Sribhumi whereafter, he was taken to Badarpur Police Station and subsequently produced before the Court at 2:30 p.m on 22.04.2025, at Sribhumi. It is submitted that the period of 24 hours within which the arrestee is required to be produced before the arresting Magistrate expired on 22.04.2025 at 3:30 a.m, and even considering the time required for travel which would be no more than 2 hours, the said period would expire around 5:00 a.m., but the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate only at 2:30 p.m, which is way beyond the permissible limit. 9. A perusal of the CD would reveal that the Police Team proceeded to the house of the petitioner at 3:40 a.m on 21.04.2025, and after apprehending the petitioner left at 5:15 a.m on 21.04.2025. Therefore, at any rate, the petitioner was effectively taken into custody before 5:15 a.m on 21.04.2025. 10. A further perusal of the CD would show that it was only on the next day, i.e. on 22.04.2025 at 2:30 p.m, that the petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the CJM, Sribhumi. Although, the petitioner was shown arrested at 11:00 p.m on 21.04.2025 in the inspection memo, the same is hardly of any significance in view of the revelation from the CD that he was taken into custody prior to 05:15 a.m on the same date. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma , AIR OnLine 2025 SC 355 observed as follows:- “……5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that pursuant to the Look Out Circular (for short, 'the LOC') issued against the respondent, he was detained at IGI Airport from 11.00 hours, on 5th March, 2022. But he was shown as arrested at 01.15 hours on 6th March, 2022 by the appellant Enforcement Directorate and was produced before the Court of the learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 1.15 hours on 6th March, 2022. 6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the instance of the appellant Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. 6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the instance of the appellant Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. The finding of fact recorded in paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the physical custody of the respondent was taken over by the appellant from the Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours on 5th March, 2022. Thereafter, at 1.15 hours on 6th March 2022, an arrest memo was prepared by ED at Raipur. He was produced before the Court at 3 p.m. on 6th March, 2024. The perusal of the arrest order(Annexure p-1) shows that the typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept blank which appear to have been filled in by hand. Admittedly, the respondent was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 11.00 a.m. on 5th March, 2022. Therefore, the arrest of the respondent is rendered completely illegal as a result of the violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the continuation of the respondent in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.” 12. From the above decision of the Apex Court, it is crystal clear that it is the point of time of effective custody of the petitioner, when his liberty of free movement gets curtailed, that the clock begins to tick with regard to the limit of 24 hours set by Article 22 of the Constitution of India, and it is evident that even allowing for travel time which would be no more than 2 hours, which time is not in dispute, the said period of 24 hours has been crossed by many hours while producing the petitioner before the nearest Magistrate. 13. 13. In view of the decision of the Apex Court cited above, this Court is of the view that regardless of the fact that sufficient incriminating materials are available against the petitioner relating to commercial quantity of prohibited contraband, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs with 2 local sureties, at least one of them being a Govt. Servant to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below in connection with the aforesaid case. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. 14. The application stands allowed accordingly.