Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010021032026 2026:GAU-AS:3953 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./356/2026 TANJIL ABEDIN TALUKDAR S/O- ABDUL MANNAN TALUKDAR. VILL.- BRAHMANGRAM, P.S.- KALAIN, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN,A S PRODHANI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 18.03.2026 Heard Mr. learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner have been taken into custody at 1:30 pm on 15.03.2025, as reflected from the record itself, and the record were also reflect that he was taken out from the Police Station for production before the Remand Magistrate at 3:15 pm on 16.03.2025. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been detained for more than a period of 24 hours with the Police for which the further detention of the petitioner had become unlawful and illegal. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that, keeping in view the recovery made from the possession of the petitioner and also the manner in which the contrabands were being dealt with, the petitioner would not be entitled to the privilege of bail even though as per records, the period of 24 hours may be surpassed before the petitioner was produced before the remand Court. This Court has considered the submissions made. It is seen that as per record, the detention of the petitioner exceeded a period of 24 hours before his production before the remand Court. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, reported as AIR Online 2025 Supreme Court 355, the Apex Court had held that the arrest Page No.# 3/5 gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody without being produced before the nearest magistrate. The court further held that once a court while dealing with the bail application finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrests in such stands vitiated. The Court notices that the allegations against the petitioner are to the extent of recovery of a huge amount of suspected yaba from the truck which was being driven by the co-accused. However, in light of the violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner by provisions of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, in the present matter, this Court is of the view that the arrest and the consequent remand of the petitioner is illegal and is vitiated and bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfilment of the strict provisions of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner is accordingly found entitled to the privilege of bail. This Court notices that the petitioner has proclaimed himself to be a resident of a district which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Investigating authority and also of the Learned Court which would have the authority to take up the case of the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner for Trial, in case a charge sheet is submitted against him. In aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of releasing the petitioner on bail are required to be imposed to ensure his participation in the investigation and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when and if the petitioner is put up for trial. This Court therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two suitable serving either with the Govt. of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Silchar under the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Silchar without prior written permission. ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the leave. iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing. Bail Application stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant