Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010134682026 2026:GAU-AS:9719 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1814/2026 NUR ALOM ALIAS SAKIL KHAN SON OF LATE FAZAR ALI VILLAGE BHATNAPAITY CHAR POLICE STATION ALOPATI CHAR DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ALI, MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN,MR H A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 16.07.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of bail to Page No.# 2/4 the accused/petitioner who is in custody since 09.03.2026 in connection with Special ND&PS Case No. 22/2026 (arising out of Alopati Char P.S. Case No. 16/2026), under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 3. The facts of the case are that on 08.03.2026, acting on prior information, the police recovered 5 bags of suspected cannabis/ganja weighing 4.212 kgs from the possession of the accused/petitioner. The contraband was duly seized in the presence of the witnesses, and after completing the necessary formalities, the FIR was lodged on 08.03.2026. 4. As per seizure list, the seizure was recorded at 1:40 am on 08.03.2026. The accused/petitioner was subsequently produced before the Magistrate only on 09.03.2026 at about 3:00 pm, with the forwarding report showing the time of arrest as 09.03.2026 at 9:00 am. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioner was in effective police custody from 1:40 am on 08.03.2026. It is not anybody’s case that the petitioner was at liberty to move freely after the initial recovery and seizure. 5. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been produced within 24 hours of his effective detention (i.e., from 1:40 am on 08.03.2026), which expired at 1:40 am on the following day i.e., 09.03.2026 excluding the time required for travel from the place of occurrence to the Magistrate. In the instant case, despite having the petitioner in effective custody since 1:40 am on 08.03.2026, the police failed to produce him before the nearest Magistrate throughout the day of 08.03.2026. 6. Upon perusal of the record, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Since the petitioner was effectively detained at 1:40 am on 08.03.2026, he ought to have been produced before the nearest Magistrate by 1:40 am on 09.03.2026. Even allowing for travel time, he should have been brought before the Duty Magistrate by 2:40 am at the latest, in the event of a failure Page No.# 3/4 to produce him during court hours on 08.03.2026. It is obvious that the date of arrest has been wrongly shown as 09.03.2026 in the Final Report as the FIR was lodged on 08.03.2026 and seizure list is also of the same date i.e., 08.03.2026. 8. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Subhash Sharma reported in AIR Online (2025) Supreme Court 355, the Apex Court had 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. 9. This Court therefore is of the opinion that, the arrest and remand of the petitioner was in violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 10. 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 investigation and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when and if the petitioner is put up for trial. This court therefore directs that the petitioner 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, Kamrup(M) under the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) without prior written permission; Page No.# 4/4 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 Learned Special Judge, NDPS, 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 Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M). Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating authority and/or Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) as and when required to do so. viii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, 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 investigation. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The investigating authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. JUDGE Comparing Assistant