Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010041732026 2026:GAU-AS:4480 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./614/2026 AHMED HUSSAIN ALIAS AHMOD HUSSAIN S/O LATE FOYAZ ALI R/O VILL- KHURAKUNA P.O. TILABAZAR P.S. KARIMGANJ (NOW SRIBHUMI) DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 27.03.2026 Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/6 2. This petition arises out of Special (NDPS) Case No. 44/2025, arising out of Karimganj PS Case No. 221/2025, registered under Section 22(C)/29 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending in the Court of Special Judge, Sribhumi. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the records that the petitioner has been apprehended after 10:40 am, but prior to 12:30 pm on 12.05.2025. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arresting authority had to produce the petitioner before the learned Remand Court within a period of 24 hours from at least 12:30 pm on 12.05.2025. However, the scanned copies of the records received from the Trial Court also reveal that the petitioner had been, in fact, moved out of the Police Station on 13.05.2025, at about 03:10 pm. The arrest memo records the arrest of the petitioner on 13.05.2025, at 10:20 am. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was not produced before the learned Remand Magistrate within 24 hours of him being apprehended in connection with the aforesaid case, the detention of the petitioner, thereafter, becomes illegal and unconstitutional and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that since the arrest memo reflects the time of arrest as- 10:20 am on 13.05.2025, the period of 24 hours would start from 10:20 am on 13.05.2025, and, therefore, Page No.# 3/6 it can be well established that the petitioner had been produced before the learned Remand Magistrate before the expiry of the 24 hours as laid down by the relevant law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement -Vs- Subhash Sharma in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1136/2023), to assert before this Court, the time of apprehension of the arrested person is of paramount interest while calculating the period of 24 hours within which he is required to be produced before the learned Remand Magistrate. In the case of Subhash Sharma (supra), the Apex Court observed that when the physical custody of the respondent therein has been taken over by the appellant at 11:00 hours on 5th of March, 2022, the production before the learned Remand Magistrate was required to be done within 24 hours from 11:00 am on 5th of March, 2022. In the case of Subhash Sharma (supra) also, though the physical custody had been taken over on 5th of March, 2022, the arrest memo was prepared at 01:15 hours on 6th of March, 2022. It was the stand of the Directorate of Enforcement therein, that the period of 24 hours had not passed from the preparation of the arrest memo. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in NDPS cases, some time is required to prepare the necessary formal documents and also other investigative procedures take some time, for which the arrest cannot be done immediately upon the apprehension, and, therefore, some extension of time is called for. Page No.# 4/6 8. Although the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor may be correct that some time may be required for carrying out the investigation or preparation of documents, the legislature in its wisdom has laid down a time frame of 24 hours for production of an arrested person before the learned Remand Magistrate after his arrest. In the present case, it is seen that the petitioner had been apprehended at least prior to 12:30 am on 12.05.2025, and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was required to be produced before the learned Remand Magistrate, on or before 12:30 am on 13.05.2025. Apparently, the said period has been exceeded by the arresting authority and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the further detention of the petitioner, thereafter, would be rendered unconstitutional. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner is found to be entitled to the privilege of bail. 9. In the 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 trial and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when directed to do so. This court therefore directs that the petitioner, namely, Ahmed Hussain @ Ahmod Hussain, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 44/2025, arising out of Karimganj PS Case No. 221//2025, under Section 22 (C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with Page No.# 5/6 the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi without prior written permission; ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; 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 such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered) before the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi. v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi. Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating authority and/or Page No.# 6/6 Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi as and when required to do so; viii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the trial. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The investigating authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 10. The bail petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant