Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010175102026 2026:GAU-AS:11825 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2359/2026 BALRAM CHOUDHARY AND ANR S/O KALU RAM CHOUDHARY, R/O 23 ANAND NAGAR, HANMARA, JAIPUR, WEST, RAJASTHAN, INDIA 2: BALDEV SINGH S/O REVANT SINGH R/O 1054/1055 SANKAR COLONY HANMARA JAIPUR WEST RAJASTHAN INDI VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MR A W AMAN,MR. A TARAFDAR,A MISHRA,MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 19.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K Parasar, learned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for the grant of bail to the petitioners, namely, Balram Choudhary and Baldev Singh, in connection with Abhayapuri P.S. Case No. 0181/2026 registered under Sections 61 (2)/112/ 204/ 205/ 318/ 336/ 337/ 339/ 340/ 3 (5) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 3 and 5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 with added Section 338, BNS, 2026. 3. The petitioners were taken into custody admittedly, on 22.07.2026 at 1200 hours and their arrest was shown at 1138 hours on 23.07.2026. The orders of the learned remand Magistrate reflect that the petitioners had been produced before the learned remand Magistrate at 6:30 p.m. on 23.07.2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the delay in production of the petitioners before the learned remand Magistrate, the very arrest and further detention are rendered illegal and the petitioners at this stage may be allowed the privilege of bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (i) Niranjan Singh and Another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote reported in (1980) 2 SCC 539, (ii) State of Haryana Others vs. Dinesh Kumar reported in Page No.# 3/5 (2008) 1 SCC 722 (iii) Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 240, (iv) order dated 13.05.2026 passed in bail application No. 929/2026 and (v) the order dated 27.03.2026 passed in bail application No. 614/2026, to impress upon this Court that the delay in the production of the arrested persons before the learned remand Magistrate would entitle the arrested person to the privilege of a bail. 6. Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the records would reflect that the time of occurrence of the alleged incident with regard to which the petitioners had been arrested was between 12:00 to 12:20 hours on 22.07.2026 and the FIR itself was received at 5:30 p.m. on 22.07.2026. 7. As per the arrest memo, the petitioners were formally arrested on 1138 hours on 23.07.2026. There is no delay in the production of the accused before the learned remand Magistrate since it was within 24 hours from there being shown formally arrested. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (supra) has held that the question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether he has been deprived of his personal liberty to go where he pleases. When used in the legal sense, in the procedure connected with criminal offence and arrest consists in the taking into custody another person under authority empowered by law for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer criminal charge or of preventing the commission of an offence. The essential elements to constitute arrest in the above sense are that Page No.# 4/5 there must be an intent to arrest under the authority accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in a manner known to law which is also understood by the person arrested. 9. The Apex Court in the case Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma has held that it is crystal clear that the applicant was detained and taken into custody at 1800 hours on 04.03.2022 and thus, in that particular case the Apex Court had held that the petitioners had been arrested on such time. 10. Having regard to the ruling of the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion that the time for the petitioner to be presented before the learned remand Magistrate, started at 1200 hours on 22.07.2026 and the time recorded by the arresting officer showing the time of formal arrest would not be material in the present case. 11. Accordingly, finding that the petitioners had been held in custody under arrest for more than 24 hours, before they were produced before the learned remand Magistrate, I deem the petitioners to be entitled to the privilege of bail in the present matter. 12. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond Rs. 50,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount each, one of whom shall be a local surety to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, (M) North Salmara, Abhayapuri. 13. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Authority or learned SDJM, (M) North Salmara, Abhayapuri without prior written Page No.# 5/5 permission for the same. 14. The petitioners shall participate and cooperate with the investigation as and when required to do so. 15. This bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant