Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010176922026 2026:GAU-AS:12555 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2402/2026 SITA DAS ALIAS AMINA KHATUN W/O. LATE NANKU DAS,R/O. NAGARBERA, JAMLAI, P.S. NAGARBERA,DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 31-08-2026 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional PP for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for granting of regular bail to the petitioner who Page No.# 2/5 was arrested on 10.08.2026 in connection with Bharalumukh Police Station Case No. 131/2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 3432/2026 Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act arising out of FIR lodged by one Lipika Chutia on 10.08.2026. 3. The gist of the allegation is about conducting of a search operation and recovery of contraband in the nature of suspected ganja weighing 1.060 Kg, from the possession of the petitioner. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the arrest of the petitioner was done after sunset and thereby violative of the clear provisionsand the mandate of Section 43 (5) BNSS, pertaining to arrest of women. 5. The learned counsel has placed before this Court a decision of the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Tanuja Roy Vs. The State of Assam and Ors reported in 2016 5 GauLR 780,in support of his contention that in such a situation, the arrest would be vitiated and also constitute violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. The case diary has been received. 7. The learned Additional PP submits that the investigation apart from implicating the petitioner also reveals that she was caught almost red handed handing the contraband substance. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about violation of section 43(5), the learned Additional PP contends that the same would not necessarily constitute a fatal infirmity in the arrest and to buttress his submission, the Page No.# 3/5 learned PP has placed reliance in the decision of Deepa Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi and Ors reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 934 8. I have perused the materials and considered the submissions. 9. From the materials, I find that the arrest of the accused petitioner was affected shortly after 6:05 PM and the arrest was done by a lady police official. The statutory provision only mentions about not arresting a woman between sunset and sunrise. It is well known that the timing of such sunset and sunrise could vary across different regions of the country.Perhaps, the said statutory language was originally drafted in an earlier era. Now, a more scientific expression would be to mention an average time in terms of the Indian Standard Time. 10. The statutory provision lays down that an exception to the stipulation can be made only in extraordinary circumstances.In my considered view, one such extraordinary situation could be one in which there is a real possibility of disappearance of concrete evidence of crime. Therefore, in a situation when information about possession, peddling or storage of illegal drugs is received involving a woman and immediate steps are required to be taken, then perhaps the same would come within the bracket of an extraordinary situation envisaged under section 43 (5) BNSS, making it possible to arrest a woman suspect even after sunset. However, in terms of the settled law and also the established police practices, any such arrest has to be made by a lady police official. 11. In the instant case, the arrest was made shortly after 6:00 pm Page No.# 4/5 on a day in the month of August, in this part of the country and it might not have been after sunset also. An aspect of an emergent situation due to the secret information about contraband by the lady suspect also emerges in the facts and circumstances. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the arrest itself is not vitiated,which might have entitled the petitioner to bail as a matter of right. 12. However, I have considered the other factors such as progress of investigation, seizure of the contraband, the accused petitioner being a woman aged 60 years and also the quantity of the contraband, being a little above small quantity. 13. In the given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner can be released on bail at this stage. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amounteachto the satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS Kamrup (M), Guwahati and subject to the conditions that:- (i) She shall cooperate with the remaining investigation; (ii) She shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (iii) She shall not try to threaten or influence the witnesses; (iv) She shall not commit any activities prohibited by the NDPS Act. Page No.# 5/5 15. Violation of any of the bail conditions would entail cancellation of the bail. 16. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant