Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010039342026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./554/2026 MOHAMMED AMAR KHAN S/O LATE KIYAMUDDIN R/O KHURAI KHABEISOI, P.S. HEINGANG, DIST. IMPHAL, MANIPUR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, I AMIN,R J OJAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 27.05.2026 Heard Mr. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, has been filed by the accused petitioners, namely, Mohammed Amar Khan, praying for grant of bail in connection with Dillai P.S. Case No. 59/2025 under Sections 21(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with Sections 61(2)/123 BNS, 2023. 3. That the factual matrix in the instant case, as submitted by the prosecution, is as under:- On 17.11.2025, Informant WSI Munmi Chutia, lodged an FIR before the O/C, Dillai P.S. stating Page No.# 2/4 inter alia that on the same day, at about 06:30 AM, while conducting routine naka-checking duty on NH-29 at Dillai Tiniali, one Maruti Suzuki Swift (Silver colour) bearing Registration NO. AS-01BK- 2448, coming from Dimapur and heading towards Manja side, was signalled to stop for checking. During inspection, it was suspected that the vehicle contained narcotic substances concealed inside its body. Accordingly, the vehicle was intercepted, and the matter was informed to higher officials. The petitioner, was apprehended and in the presence of independent witnesses and a Gazetted Officer, the vehicle was thoroughly searched. During the search, two (2) black colour polythene packets containing muddy colour powdery substances suspected to be Morphine, weighing a total of 1.959 kg, were recovered which was concealed inside a secret chamber front side of the chasis ladder frame of the said vehicle. On receipt of the F.I.R, the officer-in-Charge of the DillaiPolice Station registered a case being Dillai P.S. Case No.59/2025 under Section 21(c)/ 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 read with sections 61(2)/123 BNS, 2023 and further investigation of the case was carried out by SI Biman Chetia.) 4. That the Petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2025 in connection with the instant case and forwarded to the court of learned SDJM (M), Bokajan, Karbi Anglong, Assam. The Learned SDJM sent the Petitioner to judicial custody and since then the Petitioner has been languishing in jail since his arrest dated 18.11.2025 as an under-trial prisoner. 5. After investigation, the police filed a Charge Sheet vide C.S. No.02/2026 dated 23.01.2026 against the accused person. Subsequently, charge was framed under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act against the present petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the accused/petitioner was detained/apprehended by the police personnel in connection with the instant case on 17.11.2025 at 06:25 am in the morning and as per seizure the list of this instant case vide MR No. 84/2025 the date and time of seizure is 9:23 a.m. dated 17.11.2025 but they were produced before the learned Court below after 10:30 a.m. on 18.11.2025, which is beyond 24 (twenty four) hours i.e., after 4 hours, and it is a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused/petitioners. 7. Upon perusal of the record, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. Since the petitioners were effectively detained at 6:25 am on 17.11.2025 at Dillai, Karbi Anglong, as Page No.# 3/4 is discernible from the FIR and Forwarding Report, they ought to have been produced before the nearest Magistrate by 6:25 a.m. on 18.11.2025. Even allowing for travel time, he should have been brought before the Duty Magistrate by 7:25 a.m. at the latest, in the event of a failure to produce him during court hours on 17.11.2025. Though the time of arrest is shown as 10:10 p.m., on 17.11.2025 in the Arrest Memo, he was effectively detained at 6.25 am on that day. 9. 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. 10. 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. 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 trial and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court. 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 Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and/or the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong, Diphu 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 Page No.# 4/4 Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 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, Karbi Anglong, Diphu and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong, Diphu shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Karbi Anglong, Diphu 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. 12. Accordingly, this Bail Application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant