Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010062012026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./866/2026 NAVISH S/O ASHERAM SINGH, R/O KHEDI, GREATER NOIDA, PS SURAJPUR, DIST GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 22.04.2026 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for Page No.# 2/6 the grant of bail to the accused/petitioner in connection with Case No. 31/2026 under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of the ND&PS Act. 3. The facts of the case are that on 13.02.2026, acting on prior information, the police recovered 11 packets of suspected cannabis/ganja weighing 10.435 kgs from the possession of the accused/petitioner. The contraband was duly seized in the presence of witnesses, and after completing the necessary formalities, the FIR was lodged on 14.02.2026. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was arrested on 13.02.2026 at 11:20 pm. However, as per the seizure list, the seizure was recorded at 2:30 am on 14.02.2026. The accused/petitioner was subsequently produced before the Magistrate only on 15.02.2026 at about 1:00 pm, with the forwarding report showing the time of arrest as 14.02.2026 at 8:00 pm. 5. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the recovery from the possession of the petitioner was made at around 11:20 pm. Thereafter, the informant proceeded to the place of occurrence, Platform No. 1 of Kamakhya Railway Station. Upon arrival, he discovered the contraband in a green trolley bag belonging to the petitioner, who identified himself as Navish and stated he had received the packets from a person in Guwahati. Following the marking and measurement of the contraband, the seizure was completed. According to the seizure list, the Page No.# 3/6 date and time of seizure were recorded as 14.02.2026 at 2:30 am. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioner was in police custody from 11:20 pm on 13.02.2026. It is not anybody's case that the petitioner was at liberty to leave after the initial recovery at 11:20 pm on that date. 6. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been produced within 24 hours of his effective detention (i.e., from 11:20 pm on 13.02.2026), which expired at 11:20 pm on the following day i.e., 14.02.2026, excluding the time required for travel from the place of occurrence to the Magistrate. In the instant case, despite having the petitioner in effective custody since 11:20 pm on 13.02.2026 and completing the seizure by 2:30 am on 14.02.2026, the police failed to produce him before the nearest Magistrate throughout the day of 14.02.2026, the distance between the place of occurrence and the Magistrate’s Court being within walking distance in the city of Guwahati. 7. Upon perusal of the record, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Since the petitioner was effectively detained at 11:20 pm on 13.02.2026, he ought to have been produced before the nearest Magistrate by 11:20 pm on 14.02.2026. Even allowing for travel time, he should have been brought before the Duty Magistrate by 11:50 pm at the latest, in the event of a failure to Page No.# 4/6 produce him during court hours on 14.02.2026. 9. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Subhash Sharma reported in AIR Online (2025) Supreme Court 355, the Apex Court had held that the arrest 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 & 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 cases stand vitiated. 10. This Court therefore is of the opinion that, the arrest and remand of the petitioner was in violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 11. 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 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 Page No.# 5/6 sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) 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, Kamrup(M). 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, Kamrup(M) and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M). Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) 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, Kamrup(M) as and when required to do so; viii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) 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 investigation. 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. JUDGE Comparing Assistant