Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010164702026 2026:GAU-AS:11975 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2237/2026 JUGINDRA BHARATI ALIAS JUGENDRA BHARATI ALIAS JUGINDER BHARATI S/O LT TRILAKSHI BHARATI, R/O VILL CHRISTIANPARA, PS DHEKIAJULI, DIST SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, R MALI,MR. A TARAFDAR,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, Page No.# 2/4 learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Jugindra Bharati @ Jugendra Bharati @ Juginder Bharati, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 07.07.2026, in connection with Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No.183/2026 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Nabajyoti Bordoloi, S.I. of Police, Dhekiajuli P.S., on 07.07.2026. The essence of allegation, in the FIR, dated 07.07.2026, is that acting on a tip off, the police team conducted raid in the house of the accused and recovered 27.070 kg of suspected Ganja and seized the same preparing seizure list. 4. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused, submits that he is not pursuing this application on merit, but on the ground of non-production of the accused before the learned Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Referring to the FIR dated 07.07.2026, Mr. Nawaz submits that the police team, after apprehending the accused, left the place of occurrence at 1:00 p.m. and reached the police station at 1:50 p.m. and shown him arrested only at 10:00 p.m. on 07.07.2026, which is evident from the notices issued to him under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. He also submits that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, in the afternoon of 08.07.2026, after expiry of 24 hours window, and thereby the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India is violated and as such, he has contended to allow the accused to go on bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has opposed the petition. Mr. Sharma submits that the accused was arrested on 07.07.2026, at about 10:00 p.m., and produced him before the learned Magistrate on 08.07.2026. Referring to the case diary, he submits that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at about 1:30 p.m. and as such, the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate within the period of 24 hours. Page No.# 3/4 6. Mr. Sharma referring to the order of the learned Trial Court dated 13.07.2026, submits that the learned Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the accused was produced well within the period of 24 hours of apprehension by police and the said plea was taken in the bail application filed before the learned Trial Court. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also the case diary produced before the Court. 8. A perusal of the aforementioned order dated 13.07.2026 indicates that the learned Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that after apprehension of the accused and seizure of the contraband substances, the I.O. left the place of occurrence at 1:00 p.m. and arrived at the police station at 1:50 p.m. on 07.07.2026 and the accused was medically examined at 12:50 p.m. on 08.07.2026 and immediately thereafter produced before the learned Elaka Magistrate and the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate Court is exclusive of 24 hours detention period of the accused from his arrest. It also appears from the case diary that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at about 1:30 p.m. He was apprehended and the police left the place of occurrence about 1:00 p.m. and reached to P.S. at 1:50 p.m. on 07.07.2026 and the journey period has to be excluded while calculating the 24 hours. That being so, this Court is of the view that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate well within the period of 24 hours and therefore, this Court is of the view that on this count the accused is not entitled to bail. 9. Indisputably, the contraband substances recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity and as such, there is a requirement of satisfying the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, but no submission has been advanced as to how these twin conditions have been satisfied. 10. And having regards to the nature and gravity of the offence and also failing to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and Page No.# 4/4 accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed. 11. Case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE