Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010130832026 2026:GAU-AS:11184 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1756/2026 ANWARUL HAQUE CHOUDHURU ALIAS MD ANWARUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY ALIAS RINTU CHOUDHURY S/O NAZRUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY R/O HAILAKANDI TOWN, WARD NO. 1, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, S. M. ZINNA,MS S R MAZARBHUIYA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 07.08.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Bashya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for regular Page No.# 2/8 bail of the accused petitioner namely, Anwarul Haque Choudhury @ Md. Anwarul Hoque Choudhury @ Rintu Choudhury who was arrested on 14.01.2026 in connection with Harangajao P.S. Case No. 01/2026 under Section 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 05/2026. 3. On 11.01.2026 one Mr. Bitu Baishya, Dy. S.P.(P), Dima Hasao, Haflong lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Harangajao Police Station, Dima Hasao alleging inter alia that on 10.01.2026 at 8:45 pm, one TATA six wheeler truck bearing Registration No AS-01QC-8857 was intercepted at Dittokcerra Check Gate, Boro Narayanpur, 27NH coming from Borkhola, Silchar side towards Harangajao and apprehended the accused persons namely Md. Nazrul Hussain. After thorough searching of the vehicle, there are 50 Nos. of plastic box containing total 576.72 grm. suspected brown sugar(Heroine) without plastic box were recovered and seized which were brought hidden inside the cape (box) which was above the cabin head of the vehicle. Moreover, from the vehicle bearing Registration No AS-01QC-8857, the cash Rs. 3100/-, 2 (two) nos. of Mobile handset, 4 (four) nos. of polythene which were used for wrapping the plastic boxes containing suspected brown sugar and the license of the driver were duly seized in connection with the case in presence of independent witnesses. Later, the other accused person namely Sakir Ahmed was apprehended along with his Scorpio, Mahindra Vehicle, bearing registration no Page No.# 3/8 AS 01FG 3257 as he was found involved in the commission of crime. As per allegation, the said Sakir Ahmed confessed during investigation/interrogation that the seized contraband belongs to present petitioner, namely, Rintu Choudhury @ Rinku. As such, both the accused have been arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Accordingly, the said FIR was received and registered as Harangajao P.S. Case No. 01/2026 U/S 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act, 1985 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 05/2026. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has neither any relation with the arrested accused persons with contraband, namely, Nazrul Hussain and Sakir Ahmed, nor with their alleged contraband which was purportedly seized in connection with this case. However, during the investigation of the case, without any legal basis and justification, the Investigating Officer suddenly arrested the present petitioner on 14.01.2026 on the alleged ground that the petitioner has link with the aforesaid arrested accused, Sakir Ahmed who confessed during investigation/interrogation that the seized contraband belongs to present petitioner and Sakir Ahmed works for present petitioner for money. The petitioner was not only arrested illegally, but also without following the mandatory legal procedure in this case. That apart, the petitioner was produced before the learned Trial Court beyond 24 (twenty four) hours of his arrest. The petitioner does not know the English language, Page No.# 4/8 but the notices under Section 47/48 of BNSS, 2023 and the arrest memo under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 were improperly issued in English language. Therefore, the petitioner was unable to understand the subject matter of the case and he was not made known about his legal remedy of bail in the matter when he was arrested, therefore, he was prejudiced. The conditions of Section 50 of BNSS, 2023 was not properly followed as per law. The petitioner was not only illegally arrested in this case violating the constitutional provisions and also without following mandatory legal procedure under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, but he was also not at all involved in this case. Nevertheless, the petitioner is languishing in jail since 14.01.2026 without any valid reason and justification which is not permissible under the law. 5. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel has referred to the following decisions:- 1) The judgment and order dated 30/07/2025 passed by this court in Bail Application No.1781/2024 (Abdul Jalil -Versus- The State of Assam). 2) The judgment and order dated 06/02/2026 passed by this court in Bail Application No.4109/2025 (Sri. Bappi Sarkar and 2 others -Versus- The State of Assam). 3) The judgment and order dated 07/02/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide 2025 SCC-Online SC 269 (Vihaan Kumar others Page No.# 5/8 -Versus- The State of Haryana and another). 4) The judgment and order dated 12/02/2026 passed by this court in Bail Application No.3991/2025 (Yahiya -Versus- The State of Assam). 5) The judgment and order dated 01/12/2023 passed by this court in Bail Application No.3887/2023 (Anil Malakar -Versus- The State of Assam). 6) The order dated 20/07/2023 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.1005/2022. 7) Bail Application No-264/2026, Disposed of on 25/03/2026, Para-12. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that there are other materials against the petitioner besides the statements of the co- accused persons on the basis of which he was arrested. It is submitted on perusal of the Case Diary that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 07.01.2026 to the arrested co-accused Sakir Ahmed for passing the vehicle carrying the contraband safely, which fact is also found in his bank statement being PNB bank account standing in the name of the said co-accused Sakir Ahmed and that the present petitioner shared the screenshot of the transaction with the said co-accused Sakir Ahmed made through Whatsapp. Sakir Ahmed was arrested earlier on 10.01.2026 while transporting the contraband. Furthermore, there is other incriminating material in the form of statement of with a witness who is the wife of Md. Anwarul Hoque Choudhury alias Rintu who Page No.# 6/8 has also implicated the present petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly Anil Malakar (Supra) does not find any application in the facts of the present case and similarly, the decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633 as well as Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 are also of no relevance in the facts of the present case. 7. With regard to the contention regarding delay in production of the petitioner before the Magistrate after his arrest which extended beyond 24 hours, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with reference to the arrest memo has pointed out that the date and time of arrest shown therein is 14.01.2026 at 10:39 p.m. and as per the forwarding report as well as the order of remand, the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on 15.01.2026 and even assuming that the petitioner was produced later during the day, the said period is well within the period of 24 hours from the time of arrest indicated in the arrest memo. No other material has been shown by the petitioner to lead the Court to believe that the petitioner was arrested at any earlier point of time. Thirdly, with regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-compliance with section 47/48 of BNSS due to non-mentioning of the grounds of arrest, it is pointed out by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that Page No.# 7/8 the grounds of arrest have been clearly mentioned in both the said notices by stating that the petitioner was found to be involved in the criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused persons in trafficking of 576.72 grams of suspected brown sugar/heroin and accordingly, he is arrested in connection with Haranhajao P.S. Case No. 01/2026 under Section 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act and forwarded to judicial custody. It is therefore submitted that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also no legs to stand on. 8. Furthermore, with regard to the contention that the aforesaid two notices were written in the English language which is not understood either by the petitioner or the family members, it is pointed out that the arrested person and his relative has signed the aforesaid notices in English and therefore, prima facie, it must be presumed that they were conversant with the English language and therefore, this ground also does not avail come to the aid of the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not rebut the aforesaid arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor which are based on the material available in the case records. 10. From the aforesaid, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the arrest of the petitioner considered in the light of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Furthermore, having regard to the material on record, there appears to be no justification for coming to the conclusion that the Page No.# 8/8 petitioner is not guilty of the offence as alleged and therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is clearly attracted. 11. Accordingly the prayer for bail stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant