Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010096292026 2026:GAU-AS:8062 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1270/2026 ABDUL MALEK S/O LT KURPAN ALI, R/O VILL BANIYARAPARA, PS BARPETA, DIST BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M ISLAM, MS R BEGAM,MR. SANU HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hussain, the learned counsel appearing for the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., appearing for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant, namely, Abdul Malek, in connection with Page No.# 2/3 Barpeta P.S. Case No. 132/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/111(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged on 24.04.2026 by the complainant, namely, S.I. Pranab Baruah of Barpeta P.S., stating that on 23.04.2026 at 01:54 AM, an information was received by OC Barpeta P.S. that one person, namely, Omar Ali was detained at New Bongaigaon Railway Station by GRP, where 5 (five) biscuit-shaped (gold bar) pieces of suspected gold were recovered, weighing 583 grams, which were seized from his possession; that accordingly, OC Kalgachia P.S. proceeded to the house of Omar Ali and searched his house and during the search, Omar Ali’s wife disclosed that illegal activities involving gold smuggling and fraudulent transactions were being carried out by Abdul Malek; that accordingly, OC Barpeta informed the matter to Addl. SP (Crime), Barpeta, over phone and on being instructed, the complainant along with the police staff proceeded to the house of Abdul Malek and before reaching the village, the complainant called the village Headman and after reaching the house of Abdul Malek, one car was spotted and two persons were found inside; that on being asked, they revealed their names as Abdul Malek and Baharul Islam Khan; that the complainant apprehended both and during search, recovered 2 (two) mobile handsets from Abdul Malek and 1 (one) mobile handset from Baharul Islam Khan was recovered; that the house of Abdul Malek was also searched; that having found no materials against Baharul Islam, he was released; that on examination of the mobile phones of Abdul Malek, it was found that he used the phone numbers to deal in illegal gold and also carried out hawala transactions. 4. After receipt of the FIR, the police registered Barpeta P.S. Case No. 132/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/111(4)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that though the accused-applicant was arrested on 23.04.2026 at 11:25 PM, he was produced Page No.# 3/3 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on 25.04.2026, which is beyond 24 hours and therefore, the accused-applicant has the right to go on bail for violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 6. The TCR in the instant case has already been produced before this Court and the same is perused. 7. On perusal of the TCR, this Court has found that the accused-applicant was arrested on 24.04.2026 at 4:00 PM and while arresting him, an arrest memo was prepared which shows the date and time of arrest as 24.04.2026 at 4:00 PM. Notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS are also available in the record which also confirm that the accused-applicant was arrested at 4:00 PM on 24.04.2026. 8. It is also seen from the Forwarding Report dated 25.04.2026 that the accused-applicant was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta on 25.04.2026 only. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in production of the accused-applicant before the learned CJM, Barpeta, in the instant case. 9. It is also seen from the records that while arresting the accused-applicant, notices under Sections 36, 47 & 48 of the BNSS has been duly complied with by the arresting authority at the time of arrest of the accused-applicant. 10. Taking into account all the aspects of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused-applicant at this stage. 11. In view of the above findings, the instant bail application is rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant