Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010168722026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : Bail Appln./2562/2026 MANASH JYOTI CHABUKDHARA SON OF SRI RAJIB CHABUKDHARA RESIDENT OF - CHENGMARI JORONI GOHPUR KALABARI P.S.- GOHPUR DISTRICT- SONITPUR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY P.P. ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR H K DAS Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP for the Page No.# 2/4 State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the petitioner namely Manash Jyoti Chabukdhara in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 (corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1041/2026) registered under Section 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2)/ 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The allegation made in the FIR is that one Nazmul Ansari on 27.07.2026 lodged a written complaint before the Officer-in-Charge of Tezpur Police Station suspecting misuse of his biometric, fingerprint and iris scan by one Mr. Jewel Ahmed. The informant enrolled himself in a Skill India Related program of the Government of India. For the purpose of enrolment, the said Mr. Jewel Ahmed took his documents, biometric details, finger print and iris scans. Initially, the informant was told that the biometric details would be required for the purpose of registration and Aadhar/KYC verification and after completion of verification the informant would be imparting training followed by payment of stipend. However, the informant became skeptical from the factum of storing of his biometric details and use of the same for the purpose of attendance. Hence, fearing misuse of his biometric details, he lodged the FIR dated 27.07.2026. Accordingly, the police registered the Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026 (Corresponding G.R. No. 1041/2026) under sections 316(2)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/ 338/ 340(2) /61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D/72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Page No.# 3/4 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the seizure list, the date and time of seizure is shown as 06.08.2026 at 02.25 p.m., but he was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur on the next day at i.e. 07.08.2026 at 04.00 p.m.. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested at Jalukbari (Guwahati) and without producing him before the nearest Magistrate, the petitioner was straight away taken to Tezpur, where he was produced before the Magistrate on the following day beyond 24 hours and therefore, the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Furthermore, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the alleged offence and he has been arrested only on the basis of statement of co-accused person. 5. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that if the time of arrest is taken as 2:30 p.m. as per the seizure list, notwithstanding the fact that the time and date of arrest has been shown as 1:15 p.m. on 07.08. 2026, the said period of 24 hours would expire at 2.25 p.m. on 07.08.2026 and having regard to the travel time from Jalukbari, Guwahati to Tezpur, which would be more than 3 hours, the mandate of Article 22 has been complied with. 6. It is seen from the order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the learned Magistrate that after completion of 3 days of police remand, during which the petitioner was presumably thoroughly interrogated, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody, as prayed for by the I. O. and till date the petitioner has spent about a month in the custody. Page No.# 4/4 7. Having regard to the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner has been thoroughly interrogated, further detention of the petitioner is not considered necessary. Therefore, he may be released on bail. 8. Under the circumstances, it may not be necessary to address the rival contentions as reflected herein before. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with 2 (two) sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the aforementioned case. 9. It is further provided that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the remaining investigation and shall not try to hamper or tamper with the evidence, in any manner. 10. The bail petition stands allowed as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant