Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010098242026 2026:GAU-AS:8897 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1326/2026 RAMESH CHANDRA BISWAS S/OPARESH CHANDRA BISWAS VILL- GAREMARI, PS. - BARPETA, DIST - BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MISS. S PARBIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 19-06-20 26 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Ramesh Chandra Biswas in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 40/2026 registered under Page No.# 2/7 Sections 318(2)/318(4)/179/180 BNS, read with Section 21(b)/22(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. Case diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Ali, learned counsel that the FIR of the case was lodged on 24.04.2026 at about 06:00 p.m. and on the same day at about 03:30 p.m. a search was conducted and some contraband was found from the possession of the petitioner. However, the petitioner was shown to be arrested formally on 25.04.2026 and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 26.04.2026. Thus, the petitioner was kept in the police custody beyond 24 hours without being produced before the learned Magistrate, which violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Ali, learned counsel basically stressed on this law point and it also submitted that Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as the Apex Court had dealt with this law point, wherein the bail applications were allowed considering that the fact that detention beyond the statutory period of 24 hours is illegal and which violates the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Ali further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since last 54 days and considering his long period of incarceration also he may be released on bail. He being the permanent resident of the addressed locality will extend his cooperation in further investigation of this case as and when, his cooperation will be required. 7. Mr. Parashar, learned APP raised vehement objection and submitted that the petitioner is a veteran drug dealer and from his possession huge quantity of the contraband including Yaba tablets were recovered from his possession and Page No.# 3/7 that apart cash amount of Rs.23,23,520/- was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner apart from other materials. He further submitted that some fake currency notes amount to Rs.1,34,000/- was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Parashar, learned APP further submitted that the present petitioner is also involved in similar kind of offences and three numbers of cases are also pending against the present petitioner, namely Howly P.S. Case No. 125/2026, Dholai P.S. Case No. 41/2025 and Barpeta P.S Case No. 116/2026. 9. Mr. Parashar, learned APP further submitted that the formal arrest was done on 25.04.2026 and within 24 hours, he was produced before the learned Magistrate. However, after receipt of the FIR some search operation was conducted and some materials were also recovered/seized from the possession of the wife of the present petitioner. 10. He further submitted that no illegality has been committed for production of the accused petitioner and that apart, all the formalities were duly observed at the time of his arrest. 11. Mr. Parashar, learned APP accordingly raised objection and submitted that considering the nature of the offence as alleged against the present petitioner, his earlier conduct and other aspects of the case, the bail prayer of the petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the case record and the case diary. 13. It is an admitted fact that huge quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioner and that apart huge amount of money more than Rs. Rs.23,23,520/- already recovered from Page No.# 4/7 the possession of the accused petitioner apart from fake currency amount to Rs. Rs.1,34,000/- along with other materials. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner basically stressed on the point that the accused was apprehended on 24.04.2026 and on 25.04.2026 the FIR was lodged by the informant and he was produced before the learned Magistrate on the next date i.e., on 26.04.2026 with a prayer for police remand. 15. From the case diary it is seen that on specific information a G.D. Entry was made on 24.04.2026 at 02:35 p.m. and on that very day police team had visited to the rented premises of the accused petitioner and the articles were seized along with the contraband in presence of both the petitioner and his wife in the rented premises. At the time of search and seizure all required formalities were also stated to be observed by the police team. However, from the FIR itself it is seen that the petitioner was brought into the Barpeta Police Station along with the seized articles and the seized articles were handed over to the Malkhana and the accused was also medically examined on the same day i.e., on 24.04.2026 and thereafter only the FIR was lodged by the informant on 25.04.2026 and the accused petitioner was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate on the next day i.e., on 26.04.2026 at 06:00 p.m. 16. Though the accused was shown to be formally arrested on 25.04.2026 at 06:00 p.m. and within, 24 hours he was stated to be produced before the learned Magistrate, but from the case diary it is seen that physical custody of the accused petitioner was taken by the Investigating team on 24.04.2026 itself after search and seizure in his presence. But even after lapse of 24 hours, the accused was not produced before the learned Magistrate and he was shown to be formally arrested on 25.04.2026 by the investigating team. Page No.# 5/7 17. The judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Apex Court passed in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 262 [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.1136 of 2023] had expressed the view that the apprehension of arrested person is of paramount interest while calculating the period of 24 hours within which he is required to be produced before the learned Magistrate. It is also observed by the Apex Court that the period is to be calculated from the date when the accused was taken into physical custody by the Investigating Agency and within 24 hours of his physical custody, he is to be produced before the learned Magistrate. 18. It is also held that continuation of accused in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegally and it infringes fundamental rights under Clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody and further it is held that while dealing with an application for bail, the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India should be considered and it is the duty of the Court to uphold the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the instant case also as discussed above, it is seen that on the basis of specific information a GD Entry was made on 24.04.2026 at 02:35 p.m.m and on the basis of said GD entry the Investigating team visited the house of the accused petitioner, made search and seizure in his presence on the same very day and then the petitioner along with the seized contraband and other materials were brought to the police station and the accused was kept in the custody of the police station. But the FIR was lodged on 25.04.2026 and the Page No.# 6/7 accused was produced before the learned Magistrate only on 26.04.2026 which is beyond 24 hours of his physical custody, though it is stated that he was formally arrested on 25.04.2026 at 6 p.m., but it reveals from the case diary that his physical custody was taken by the Investigating team on 24.04.2026 and admittedly he was produced before the learned Magistrate beyond the period of 24 hours. 20. So without going other detail merit into the case, only considering this aspect of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the accused petitioner is entitle for bail. 21. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta the accused/petitioner, namely, Ramesh Chandra Biswas, be enlarged on bail in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No. 40/2026 registered under Sections 318(2)/318(4)/179/180 BNS, read with Section 21(b)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Agency, as and when he is required for the purpose of investigation; (ii) that 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta; and Page No.# 7/7 (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, without prior permission. 22. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands disposed of. 23. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant