Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010070292026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1044/2026 SEZO PURO AND ANR S/O LAVOHU PURO, R/O HOUSE NO 97, MEDZIPHEMA, PS MEDZIPHAMA, DIST DIMAPUR, NAGALAND 2: BOILEN HAOKIP S/O LT LUNPHOTINTHANG HAOKIP R/O GANE VILLAGE PS LAMPHAL DIST IMPHAL MANIPU VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. J N SUWAI,MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date - 19.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. D. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/9 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Sezo Puro and (2) Boilen Haokip who are detained behind the bars since 02.04.2025 in connection with the NDPS Case No. 177/2025 arising out of Guwahati GRPS Case No. 44/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. It is pertinent to mention herein that, on earlier occasion also, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing application for bail. However, their prayer for bail was rejected after going through the materials on record. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 02.04.2025 one Akshay Kumar Nath, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the officer-in- charge of Guwahati GRPS, inter-alia, alleging that on that day, at about 7.20 a.m., an information was received that during regular checking of the Train No. 12423 DN Rajdhani Express at Platform No. 1 of the Guwahati Railway Station, two persons were apprehended when they were carrying 24.25 Kgs. of suspected ganja. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though total 24.25 kgs of Ganja were seized from the petitioners. However, the same was seized separately and two separate seizure memo were prepared. In one case, only 11.150 kg of Ganja was seized and remaining Ganja was seized from the possession of the other accused person. The said plea was taken by the petitioners in their earlier bail application, however, same was rejected by this Court. Page No.# 3/9 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this time, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail on the ground of violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, as well as for violation of statutory provisions contained in Section 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the instant case, the information regarding commission of the alleged offence was received by police at 7.20 am on 02.04.2025 and thereafter, during search of the Train No. 12423 DN Rajdhani Express, the said contraband was recovered from both the petitioners. He further submits that the recovery as well as seizure of the contraband was made from petitioner No. 1 at 8.27 am on 2.04.2025 whereas the seizure from the petitioner No. 2 was made on the same day at 9.05 am. 8. He further submits that in the instant case, the FIR was registered at 13.38 hours on 02.04.2025 and the fact of apprehension of the present petitioners by police has been disclosed in the FIR itself. It is categorically stated in the FIR that the contraband was seized from the possession of the present petitioners after they were apprehended. However, in the arrest memo, the time of the arrest has been reflected as 8.12 p.m. He further submits that the time of actual physical apprehension of the petitioners has to be taken into consideration for computation of period of 24 hours under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. He submits that it is clear from the medical examination report annexed along with the forwarding Page No.# 4/9 report of the present petitioners that they were produced for medical examination at Dhirenpara FRU on 3.04.2025 at 11.59 am. Hence, he submits that undisputedly the physical custody of the petitioners was taken over by the police at the time of recovery of contraband from them before seizing the seizure of the contraband and therefore, they ought to have been produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of the time of their actual apprehension. 9. He submits that by showing a later time in the arrest memo, the arresting authority cannot be absolved from the responsibility of production of the arrested persons before the Magistrate in terms with the provision of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India. He submits that any violation of the said Constitutional provision would render the arrest as illegal and on that count itself, the petitioners are entitled to get bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondents has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma” reported in the 2025 INSC 141. 10. He further submits that there has been a violation of the provision of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 in the instant case as no signatures of any independent witness was obtained on the arrest memo after the arrest of the present petitioners. He submits that this itself amounts to violation of guidelines of the Apex Court issued in the case of “Shri D.K. Basu, Ashok K. Johri Vs. State of West Bengal” reported in “AIR 1997 Supreme Court 610”. He also submits that there has also been violation of mandate of Section 48 in as much as no written communication of the grounds of arrest were made to the Page No.# 5/9 relatives/friends/ nominated person of the accused persons in this case. He, therefore, submits that the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated in this case and on those grounds, the arrest of the petitioners have become illegal and as such, they are entitled to get bail. 11. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners. He submits that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and said aspect has been taken into consideration by this court while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioners on earlier occasion. He also submits that as such, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in the instant case and, therefore, the petitioners may not be granted bail in this case. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that the arrest memo clearly indicates that the petitioners were arrested at 8.00 p.m. on 02.04.2025. He also submits that though, the FIR indicates that the petitioners were apprehended, however, the FIR was registered at 13.38 hours on 02.04.2025 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners were produced before the Court after 13.38 hours on 03.04.2025. 13. He further submits that since the case involves commercial quantity of contraband, the procedure to complete formalities of seizure and other mandatory procedure takes considerable time and the petitioners were therefore, not arrested during conduct of the said Page No.# 6/9 procedure. He also submits that the law provides that journey time from the place of arrest to the nearest Magistrate has to be excluded while computing the period of 24 hours. He submits that in this case, the petitioners have failed to show that they were produced before the Magistrate after 24 hours on their arrest and therefore, there is no violation of the mandate of Article 22 (2) of the Constitution of India. 14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submit that the petitioners having been involved in offence involving commercial quantity of contraband may not be released by taking into consideration that they are inhabitant of State of Nagaland and Manipur and if they are released, their attendance may not be easily procured. He however, fairly submits that after going through the scanned copy of the Trial Court records, he could not find the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned copy of the trial court records. 16. Though, on perusal of the arrest memo prepared by the arresting authority, it appears that the time of arrest of the petitioners has been shown therein as 8.00 pm on 02.04.2025, however, on perusal of the FIR lodged in this case and which was registered at 13.38 hours on 02.04.2025, it appears that it is mentioned therein that the accused persons were apprehended and brought to Guwahati GRPS. This indicates that the petitioners were apprehended before 13.38 hours on 02.04.2025 and not at 8.00 pm on the same day as shown Page No.# 7/9 in the arrest memo. This practice of showing and incorrect time of arrest in the arrest memo can never be encouraged for whatsoever reason as it may tend to defeat the constitutional protection guaranteed to an arrested person. 17. It also appears that in the arrest memo prepared under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, no attestation of any witness under Clause (b) (i) of the said provision, is there which is a clear violation statutory provision. It also results into violation of provisions contained in Section 62 of the BNSS, 2023, which provides that the arrest shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of BNSS, 2023 or any other law for the time being in force. 18. Moreover, in the instant case, the prosecution side has failed to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners in terms of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. The Apex Court has held in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana” reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 has held that failure to communicate grounds of arrest, in writing to the friends, relatives or such other persons as may be nominated by the arrested persons would render the arrest of such an arrestee illegal due to violation of the fundamental rights of such an arrestee guaranteed to him under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Any breach of fundamental rights of an arrested person would override the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. As such, the petitioners are entitled to get bail in the aforesaid case. Page No.# 8/9 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioners, namely, (1) Sezo Puro and (2) Boilen Haokip are hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 177/2025, which is pending in the Court of learned Addi- tional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati; 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 in- ducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be ac- quainted 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, 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. Page No.# 9/9 20. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant