Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010059082026 2026:GAU-AS:8589 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./153/2026 BIDYUT DEB ALIAS BIPLOB SON OF BIRENDRA KUMAR DEB RESIDENT OF VILL- LAKHIPUR FOREST OFFICER W/NO. 03,PO.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:INVESTIGATING OFFICER SI OF PABITA DEKA RANGIA POLICE STATION Advocate for the Petitioner : S KAUR, L BANIK,N NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 12.06.2026 Heard Ms L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application filed under Section 438 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has Page No.# 2/4 challenged the order dated 07.03.2026, passed by the learned Special Judge, Rangiya, by which the application filed under Section 311 CrPC, more specifically, for calling one Suleman Ali, who stated to have arrested the petitioner to be summoned as a witness in the case, i.e., NDPS Case No. 2022. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the trial against the said petitioner has been commenced and the prosecution witnesses were examined and the Police Officer, who had investigated the case was also examined as PW No. 6. However, the petitioner’s case is that he was arrested not by PW No. 6, but by one Suleman Ali, as shown in the arrest memo dated 30.03.2022, and the said Suleman Ali is reflected as the Investigating Officer of the said case. 4. The petitioner also submits that he was shown as arrested on 30.03.2022, at 08:30 pm, but it is stated by the petitioner that the date and time shown in the arrest memo is incorrect and to substantiate that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the FIR in the instant case, i.e., lodged on 28.03.2022, and in the said FIR, it is written that on 27.03.2022, at about 07:00 pm, a naka checking was conducted in the National Highway No. 31 and after stopping the suspected vehicle, the petitioner who tried to run away from the said place was apprehended. As such, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was actually arrested or apprehended on 27.03.2022, and that after 3 (three) days of his detention, he was plaed before the learned Magistrate. Under Section 57 of the CrPC, 1973 or Section 58 of BNSS, 2023, it is provided that no Police Officer shall Page No.# 3/4 detain in custody, a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than 24 hours, excluding the time necessary for the journey to the Magistrate’s Court. 5. The arrest memo placed by the petitioner shows that the petitioner was arrested on 30.03.2022, whereas the arrest was made on 27.03.2022. 6. During the trial of the instant case, PW-6 stated that he was the Investigating Officer of the instant case and that he arrested the petitioner. However, from the arrest memo, it becomes clear that one Suleman Ali has arrested the accused person. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was produced before the nearest Magistrate, i.e., after a period of 3 (three) days from the date of such arrest. She also submits that PW No. 6 was cross-examined on the said point, but PW-6 replied that it was he who arrested the petitioner and that the defence raised in respect of the petitioner that he was produced before the Magistrate after a period of 3 (three) days was negated. There seems to be a contradiction in the statement of PW No. 6 and the arrest memo placed by the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner, as such filed an application for calling of the said Suleman Ali as a witness in the instant case, by taking recourse to Section 311 of the CrPC, which was rejected by the learned Court of Special Judge, Rangiya, as stated above. The learned Court had rejected the said application, mainly on the ground that said Suleman Ali was neither the seizure witness nor he was the informant and that his testimony will not anyway, is essential for just decision of the case, however, while making the said observation, the learned Court had given the Page No.# 4/4 finding that Suleman Ali had arrested the petitioner. 8. Section 311 of CrPC provides that any Court may, at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding, can summon any person as a witness and the only requirement is to see whether calling of the said person would be in the just decision of the case. Since it is the law of the land that the petitioner is innocent till he is convicted, the petitioner should be given all opportunities to defend his case and to show his innocence. Since there appears disputed facts, as to who had arrested the petitioner and when was he arrested, this Court finds it fit that the said Suleman Ali be called as a witness by the Court of Special Judge, Rangiya, for a just decision of the case. 9. In view of the same, the order dated 07.03.2026 is set aside and the Court is directed to allow Md Suleman Ali to be brought as a witness. 10. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant