Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010177302026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2416/2026 MARUF ISLAM AND ANR SONS OF ABDUL KALAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- UTTAR PADMABIL, P.O.- JALABAZAR, P.S.- PANISAGAR, DISTRICT - NORTH TRIPURA, ASSAM, PIN -799260 2: RAHUL UDDIN SON OF ABDUL KALAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- UTTAR PADMABIL P.O.- JALABAZAR P.S.- PANISAGAR DISTRICT - NORTH TRIPURA ASSAM PIN -79926 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K M HASSAN, T ISLAM,MR. BHUSHAN NATH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. K.M. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Page No.# 2/4 Das, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the petitioners namely (1) Maruf Islam and (2) Rahul Uddin, who are arrested on 21.05.2026, in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 61/2026 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 440/ 2026) registered under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Allegation as reflected in the FIR is that upon a reliable source information, a GDE No. 19, dated 21.05.2026 was made and after making the GE Entry, a team of Patharkandi Police Station visited the Sonakhira AD Camp and conducted a naka checking. After intercepting and making search and seizure of the vehicle, the police personnel allegedly recovered 10,000 Yaba tablets from the vehicle and seized mobile handsets from the possession of the accused/ petitioners and the vehicle and made seizure list as M.R. No. 62/2026, dated 21.05.2026 and returned the police station. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that as per the search and seizure list, the date and time of seizure is shown as 21.05.2026 at 1.07 a.m. and the petitioners were therefore under detention at least from that point of time, although the information was received by the police at a little earlier at 12.05 a.m. However, as per the forwarding report, the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate only on 22.05.2026. 5. A perusal of the aforesaid documents i.e. the search and seizure list as well as the forwarding report lends credence to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, which could not be disputed by the learned Page No.# 3/4 Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that such delay of production beyond 24 hours of the arrest of the petitioners is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. From the undisputed documents referred to above, it is apparent that the petitioners were detained on 21.05.2026 in between 12.05 a.m. to 1.07 p.m, in as much as the petitioners must have been placed under detention when the search and seizure operation was being carried out and the period of 24 hours during which the petitioner was required to be produced before the Magistrate expired at the latest by 1.07 a.m. on 22.05.2026. However, the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate after 10:30 a.m., presumably after commencement of court working hours on 22.05.2026 in the absence of any material to the contrary, although the time of production is not indicated in the forwarding report. 8. The time of arrest is to be reckoned, not from the time of effective detention from which point of time the petitioners were no longer free to move of their own accord and not the formal time of arrest as may be shown in the arrest memo or any other document, which aspect has been explained in the case of Niranjan Singh and Anrs versus Prabhakar Rajaram Khatrote & Ors., reported in 1980 INSC 44, and Directorate of Enforcement- versus- Subhash Sharma, reported in 2025 INSC 141. In view of the Page No.# 4/4 above, it is evident that the petitioners’ fundamental rights under section Article 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated, which entitles them to be enlarged on bail. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two securities each of like amount, out of whom one should be the regular Government employee, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj) in connection with the aforementioned case. It is provided that the petitioners shall participate in the trial as and when trial commences and appear before the I.O. for further investigation if required and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation of the case, in any manner, and shall not intimidate to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case. 10. The petition stands allowed and accordingly disposed of. 11. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant