Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010002982026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./201/2026 MAKAKMAYUM MAMTAJUR RAHMAN S/O MD HABIBUR RAHMAN, R/O WANGOI MAMANG LEKAI, PS WANGOI, DIST IMPHAL WEST, MANIPUR VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR. S SARKAR,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 27.05.2026 Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner, Makakmayum Mamtajur Rahman has prayed for releasing him on bail Page No.# 2/5 after he was arrested in connection with Guwahati G.R. P.S. Case No.150/2025 registered under Sections 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the informant lodged an F.I.R on 09.10.2025 before the Officer-in-Charge of Guwahati GRPS Police Station to effect that while conducting train checking duty, the informant along with his team recovered NDPS contraband of suspected Morphine weighing total 1.546 kgs from the possession of the present accused petitioner. Hence the case. Upon receipt of the F.I.R, the Officer-in-Charge of Guwahati GRPS Police Station registered the same vide Guwahati GRPS Case No. 150/2025, U/s- 21(c) of NDPS ACT. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2025 by the police of Guwahati GRPS Police Station in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 150/2025, U/s- 21(c) of NDPS Act and accordingly was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Kamrup(M) on dated 10.10.2025 and thereafter the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and since then he is languishing in jail hajot. 5. After investigation, the police filed a Charge Sheet vide C.S. No.124/2025 dated 28.12.2025 against the accused person. 6. It is further submitted that the accused/petitioner was detained/apprehended by the police personnel in connection with the instant case on 09.10.2025 prior to 06:10 a.m. in the morning and as per seizure the list of this instant case vide MR No. 123/2025 the date and time of seizure is 08:38 a.m. dated 09.10.2025 but they were produced before the learned Court below after 10:30 a.m. on 29.07.2005, which is beyond 24 (twenty four) hours Page No.# 3/5 i.e., after 4 hours, and it is a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused/petitioner. 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 06:10 a.m. on 09.10.2025 at Guwahati Railway Station, as is discernable from the FIR and Forwarding report, he ought to have been produced before the nearest Magistrate by 06:10 a.m. on 10.10.2025. Even allowing for travel time, he should have been brought before the Duty Magistrate by 7:10 a.m. at the latest, in the event of a failure to produce them during court hours on 09.10.2025. 9. Although the time of arrest is shown as 7:00 p.m on 09.10.2025 in the Arrest Memo, he was under effective detention from 06:10 a.m on that day. 10. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Subhash Sharma, reported in AIR Online (2025) Supreme Court 355, the Apex Court 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. 11. This Court therefore is of the opinion that, the arrest and remand of the petitioners were in violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioners under the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict Page No.# 4/5 conditions of releasing the petitioner on bail are required to be imposed to ensure their participation in the trial and also to ensure that they appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when and if the petitioners are put up for trial. This court therefore directs that the petitioners 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 the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M) under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and/or the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, 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 Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M) and Page No.# 5/5 shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M). Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup(M) shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, 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 trial. viii) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. 13. Accordingly, this Bail Application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant