Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010123602026 2026:GAU-AS:12359 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1637/2026 PANDAV KUMAR S/O JANGHO SINGHR/O DHARAMA CHAKP.S. MANSIDIST. KHAGARIA, BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 27.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam. 2. The present petition is filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioners, namely, Pandav Kumar, in connection with Gorchuk P.S. Page No.# 2/4 Case No. 87/2026 under Section 22 (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Guwahati, Assam. 3. Although the scanned copy of the TCR was called for, the original TCR had been received by this Registry. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not have the privilege of his grounds of arrest being informed to his friend/ family/ relative as required under Section 48 of the BNSS; however, on a perusal of the report submitted by the learned Addl. P.P, this Court is of the view that substantial compliance with Section 48 had been done. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the arrest memo of the petitioner did not contain the signature of any independent witness and further submitted that the petitioner had been taken into custody at about 1:12 pm, when the seizure list along with contraband had been prepared on 24.04.2026. 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was thereafter produced before the learned remand Magistrate in the evening hours of 25.04.2026. He therefore submits that the window period of 24 hours, as mandatory in law, having been surpassed, the continued detention of the petitioner after 24 hours of his arrest had been rendered illegal and the petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail. 7. Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. P.P has submitted that there is another seizure memo which was prepared at about 9:05 am on 25.04.2026 showing the Page No.# 3/4 seizure of a mobile from the petitioner. He has accordingly submitted that, if the second seizure list is taken into consideration, the production of the petitioner would be within the 24-hour window. 8. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the petitioner had been allegedly apprehended along with the contraband on 24.04.2026 and the seizure lists had been prepared immediately after the seizure procedure had been completed. 9. Therefore, in view of the settled law by the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the accused had been taken into custody on 24.04.2026 at about 1 p.m. 9. The records do not reveal, and further, the learned Addl. P.P has not been able to show from the record supplied to him by the Arresting/Investigating Authority that the petitioner had been presented before the learned remand Magistrate before the 24-hour window had elapsed. 10. In such view of the matter and also keeping in view that any independent witness had not witnessed the arrest of the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the further detention of the petitioner has been rendered illegal in the present case. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted the privilege of bail and shall be allowed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Kamrup, (M), Guwahati. 9. The learned Special Judge, Kamrup, shall be at liberty to impose such other Page No.# 4/4 conditions as may be required to ensure the presence of the petitioner during the trial. 10. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior written permission. 11. The petitioner shall not indulge in any activity of a similar nature during the period of bail. 12. The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of the interim relief for the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of. 14. The Registry shall forthwith return the original TCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant