Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010074012026 2026:GAU-AS:6127 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1032/2026 VIVEK HUSSAIN S/O- MD. AKHUR SIDDIQUE, R/O- TRIVNI TOLL RD NO 1, P.S.-JAIGAON, DIST.- ALIPURDUAR, WEST BENGAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, G. DUTTA,MR. J N SUWAI,MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 04.05.2026 Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This instant bail application has been filed under section 483 of the Page No.# 2/5 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, whereby the accused petitioner namely, Vivek Hussain, has prayed for bail in connection with GHY GRPS Case No. 63/2026 under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. 3 . The petitioner was arrested in this case on 25.03.2026. 4. The FIR was lodged on 25-03-2026. The gist of allegations was that surveillance was conducted at Kamakhya railway station against crime and antisocial activities. On 24-03-2026, at 7.20 pm, one male person was found coming in a suspicious manner. He was checked and revealed his name as Vivek Hussain from West Bengal. It is alleged that he was asked to open the bag which he was carrying and therein, two packets were found of suspected ganja, which was weighed and found to be 2.223 kgs. Some other materials were also seized and the accused was brought to the RPF post. 5. The arrest memo indicates the date of arrest as 25-03-2026 at 9 pm. The case diary has been received and the forensic report is awaited. 6. It is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that as per the seizure list, contraband was seized from the possession of the petitioner. The prosecution summits that at this stage he has objection to grant of bail and that on the date of arrest reflected in the arrest memo, there is no violation of the constitutional provisions. 7. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was detained as revealed by the FIR at 7.20 pm on 24-03-2026 and produced before the Magistrate on 26-03-2026 as per the forwarding report, which is beyond the period of 24 hours and thereby violating the constitutional provisions, making the further detention untenable. However, Page No.# 3/5 as already stated in the said forwarding report, the date and time of arrest is mentioned as 25-03-2026 at 9 pm. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma, reported in 2025 INSC 141 and two other decisions of the Co-ordinated Bench of this Court in BA/614/2026 and BA/866/2026, which have reference to the decision in Subhash Sharma (supra). 8. The relevant paragraph of Subhash Sharma (supra) is reproduced herein below – “6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the instance of the appellant-Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. The finding of fact recorded in paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the physical custody of the respondent was taken over by the appellant from the Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours on 5th March, 2022. Thereafter, at 1.15 hours on 6th March 2022, an arrest memo was prepared by ED at Raipur. He was produced before the Court at 3 p.m. on 6th March, 2024. The perusal of the arrest order (Annexure p-1) shows that the typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept blank which appear to have filled in by hand. Admittedly, the respondent was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 11.00 a.m. on 5th March, 2022. Therefore, the arrest of the respondent is rendered completely illegal as a result of the violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the continuation of the respondent in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated Page No.# 4/5 time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.” 9. In the said decision, in the facts of the case, the accused was detained at the IGI airport at 11 hours on 5-03-2022. But he was shown arrested at 1.15 am on 06-03-2022 and produced on 06-03-2022 at 1.15 pm. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the facts of the case, held the production to be beyond the period of 24 hours, counting the said period from his detention at 11 hours on 5-03-2022. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks the benefit of a similar application in the instant case. 10. In the co-ordinate Bench decisions of this Court mentioned above, Subhash Sharma(supra) was referred to and such benefit was given to the accused persons in those cases. I have given my consideration to the matter. The investigation has progressed and pending only for the FSL report. 11. Moreover, there appears to be some infirmity in the arrest procedure as well. In the entire facts and circumstances, and also considering the length of detention, the accused should be allowed to go on at this stage, subject to conditions. 12. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with GHY GRPS Case No. 63/2026 under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court [Special Judge, Kamrup(M)]. Page No.# 5/5 13. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) That the petitioner shall render full co-operation to the remaining investigation; (b) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; and (c) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any illegal activity, including under the NDPS Act. 14. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 15. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant