Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010020632026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./351/2026 SAMIM UDDIN BEG S/O ABDUL SAMED BEG VILL- BHATGRAM, P.O.KALIN P.S. KATIGORAH, AND DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Z HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. This application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Samim Uddin Beg, who has been detained behind the bars since 15.03.2025, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 28/2025, arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 134/2025, registered under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The aforesaid case is presently pending before the court of learned Additional Session Judge, FTC, Sribhumi. 4. This is for the second time the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail. His earlier application for bail was rejected by this Court on 25.07.2025 in Bail Application No. 2080/2025. 5. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.03.2025, one Jishu Moni Borah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- charge of Karimganj Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that one twelve wheeler goods carrier vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-LC-6436 would be carrying huge quantity of suspected prohibited drugs from Mizoram towards Patharkandi, a search team was constituted. During naka checking operation, near Bathgram Puwamara Bypass, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted and Page No.# 3/6 the petitioners who were the driver and co-driver of the said vehicle were apprehended. During search of the said vehicle, total 8,576 grams of the Yaba tablets were recovered therefrom. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this time the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 22 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. He submits that the petitioner was detained on 15.03.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case after completion of the search and seizure procedure. He submits that same is apparent from the seizure list, which was prepared at 2.30 p.m. on 15.03.2025. 8. He also submits that after the completion of the search procedure, he was detained along with the other co-accused and was kept inside the police station, however, he was shown arrest in the arrest memo on 16.03.2025 at 10.00 a.m. and was forwarded before the Magistrate at 3.15 p.m. on 16.03.2025, which is beyond the period of 24 hours. 9. He further submits that continuation of detention of the petitioner without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is illegal and it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India and as such, his arrest has itself become vitiated. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma” (Judgment dated 21.01.2025 in SLP Criminal No.1136/2023). Page No.# 4/6 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the same ground another co-accused who was also detained along with the present petitioner has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 356/2026. 11. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. However, he fairly submits that the search procedure was conducted in the aforesaid case on 15.03.2025 at 2.30 pm and there is no indication on record that thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to go. He however, submits that the arrest of the petitioner in the arrest memo has been shown at 10.00 am on 16.03.2025. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on the record. 13. Though, on an earlier occasion the application for bail from the present petitioner was rejected on the ground that embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. However, from the materials available on the record, it appears that the petitioner was detained in connection with the aforesaid case at 2.30 pm on 15.03.2025 and he was not allowed to go thereafter and he was not set free after this procedure. It appears that the arresting authority has shown the time of arrest of the petitioner at 10.00 am on 16.03.2025. 14. It appears that though the petitioner was detained on 15.03.2025 at 2.30 pm, the arresting authority has shown later time and date of his Page No.# 5/6 arrest which the arresting authority cannot do and the continuation of the petitioner in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India. As held by the Apex Court, any breach of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22 of the Constitution of India overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as it is apparent from records that the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his detention. His arrest becomes vitiated and on that ground alone he is entitled to get bail. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge cum Additional Session Judge, FTC, Sribhumi with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special (NDPS) Case No. 28/2025, which is pending in the Court learned Additional Session Judge, FTC, Sribhumi.; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, Page No.# 6/6 mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant