Page No.# 1/7 vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2026

                                                                         Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010281362025




                                                                  undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./4143/2025

            ARMAN HOSSAIN AND ANR
            S/O ABDAR HOSSAIN, R/O JARIDHARIA, P.O. GITALDAHA, P.S. DINHATA,
            DIST. COOCH BEHAR, WEST BENGAL, PIN 736175

            2: ARIF ALI
             SON OF AZIM ALI
            R/O RAGHUNANDAN
            P.O. BALAKANDIP.S. DINHATA
            DIST. COOCH BEHAR
             WEST BENGAL
             PIN-73617

            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI
            ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MS. K DEY,MR P K BASU

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,




                                    BEFORE
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

                                          ORDER

Date : 26.02.2026

Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Page No.# 2/7

Ms. K. Dey. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NCB.

2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Arman Hossain and Arif Ali, have prayed for bail in connection with NCB GZU Crime No. 08/2025 under Section 8(c) of NDPS Act, r/w Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The case arose out of an FIR dated 12.07.2025. The gist of the allegation is that, based on an information, search was conducted in one platforms of Guwahati Railway Station and the present petitioners were allegedly found involved in trafficking of Methamphetamine tablets, as a passenger in Kanchanjunga Express.

4. This is a subsequent bail petition as an earlier bail petition was rejected vide order dated 21.11.25 passed in Bail Appln. No. 2957/2025. The petitioner is in judicial custody at present and he stated to have been arrested on 12.07.2025.

5. In the previous bail application, the contentions were made regarding the issue of compliance with the mandatory notices under Section 47/48 of BNSS and also the incriminating materials against the petitioner being only the statement of co-accused. However, this Court in the previous bail order was satisfied about the compliance with the notices and regarding materials other than statement of co-accused, it was stated that the case was at the stage of investigation. For ready reference, paragraph No.-11 of the said bail order is reproduced here:-

"11. Considering the materials, I am reasonably satisfied that there is no noncompliance of Section 47/48 of BNSS so as to constitute violation of constitutional mandate under Section Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. It is well settled law that Page No.# 3/7

in terms of Toofan Singh (supra) that a conviction cannot be based solely on the statement of the co-accused. However, no any decision has been placed before this Court that if the primary materials at the stage of bail adjudication is the statement of the co-accused, then the accused is mandatorily required to be granted bail. Needless to say that, the said aspect can always be taken into account at the stage of consideration of bail."

6. In this subsequent bail application, the primary contention of the petitioner is that, he was detained in the late hours of night on 11.07.2025 but produced before the Magistrate on 13.07.2025 beyond the period of 24 hours and therefore, his arrest had stood vitiated, having been violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel relies on the decisions of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, D K Basu Vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 and Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356.

8 The petitioner's side has also filed an additional affidavit in support of the main subsequent grounds adduced in this petition.

9. On the other hand, the prosecution represented by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, submits that there is no violation of the notices under Section 47/48 BNSS and no violation either of the constitutional provisions, as much as, the accused/petitioner for being arrested on 12.07.2025 was produced before the Magistrate on 13.07.2025 within the stipulated period.

10. It is submitted that the process of identifying the potential accused, giving him notices etc. would take its time and at that time he was not detained. He was not arrested and only after finding prima facie materials, including the statements under Section 67 NDPS Act, the petitioners were put under arrest on Page No.# 4/7

12.07.2025. Detailed grounds of arrest have been narrated in the notices under Sections 47/48 BNSS.

11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decisions of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799, D K Basu Vs State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 and Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356.

12. The scanned TCR has been received.

13. In the meantime, the case has been charge-sheeted and a certified copy of the charge-sheet has also been submitted by the petitioner as part of his additional affidavit.

14. In the scanned TCR received, I have perused the relevant materials and also considered the rival submissions. In the charge- sheet, the materials found by the investigation with regard to the different accused persons, including the petitioners have been enumerated under separate individual headings.

15. The aspect of compliance with notices under Section 47 and 48 of BNSS have already been gone into and accepted in the earlier bail order. Therefore, in terms of Section 362 Cr.P.C (Section 403 BNSS), the same cannot be reviewed and gone into again by this Court in the subsequent bail petition. Nevertheless, upon perusing the arrest documents once again, I do not find any infirmity in the notices under Section 47 and 48 BNSS.

16. With regard to the contention of the petitioner regarding production beyond the period of 24 hours and consequent violation of the constitutional mandate - I find that in the late hours of 11.07.2025, the search operation was conducted and the present petitioners were given a notice to appear before the Page No.# 5/7

Investigating Authority. Subsequently, upon collecting more materials, seizure of the alleged contraband and recording of statements of the petitioners and other co-accused under Section 67 NDPS Act, they were arrested on 12.07.2025. The same is clearly reflected in the arrest documents.

17. I have perused the order of the learned JMFC dated 13.07.2025, upon their first production. As mentioned in the order, the said day was a holiday and the learned JMFC was discharging duties as a holiday Magistrate. Upon their production before the learned JMFC on 13.07.2025, they were remanded.

18. On the basis of the available materials, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner side that the arrest and subsequent production of the petitioners was violative of the provisions of Section 36 BNSS either, which could, in terms of the law laid down in D.K. Basu (supra), could have made their arrest infirm and making them entitled to bail. Thus, I find that the same is not the case and I have not found any fatal infirmity in the arrest procedure, making the arrest completely vitiated.

19. With regard to the aspect of arrest solely on the basis of statement of co- accused, I go back to the narration in the charge-sheet with regard to the petitioners. With regard to petitioner Arman Hossain, it is stated in the charge- sheet that his statement recorded under Section 67 NDPS, which was voluntary in nature, implications have emerged about involvement in trafficking of the seized contraband. It is stated that his mobile number has been located and verified to be in his name and from the CDR analysis, he was found to be in numerous contact with the co-accused Tahir Hussain Laskar, who was found carrying the contraband. He was in touch with the said co-accused on two mobile phones of his. The petitioner Arman Hossain was also stated to be in telephonic contact with other co-accused of this case, including petitioner No. 2 Page No.# 6/7

Arif Ali. It is stated that financial transactions of significant amount were found in the bank account of petitioner Arman Hossain and Arif Ali and also Arman Hossain with another Raju Hussain. It is stated that after investigation, it has been found that Petitioner Armaan Hossain acted as conduits for movement of funds and logistics, receiving and utilizing the money for execution of the trafficking, thereby attracting liability under Section 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.

20. With regard to petitioner Arif Ali, the narration in the charge-sheet is on similar lines. Thus, it has been stated that in his voluntary statement under 67 NDPS Act, his involvement in trafficking of the contraband has emerged, his mobile phone has been verified to be in his number and CDR analysis indicated numerous contact with co-accused of the case, including Arman Hossain, Raju Hussain. It is stated that he was found to be in contact with Arman Hossain 1078 times. Financial transactions of significant nature were also found between him and Arman Hossain and also with Raju Hussain. A similar narration has also been made with regard to petitioner Arif Ali about his being conduit for execution of trafficking of illegal drugs.

21. Thus, upon perusing the aforesaid materials, it cannot be said that sole materials against the petitioner upon completion of investigation are the statements of co-accused. The investigation has found other incriminating materials as well, with regard to the petitioners.

22. The contentions of the petitioner side regarding violation of arrest procedure having been dispelled, as also the contention regarding the sole incriminating material being the statement of co-accused - now, the applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be seen. From the investigation materials revealed and narrated in the charge-sheet, it is not possible to make a Page No.# 7/7

determination for the purpose of bail adjudication that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of the alleged offences. Therefore, the test of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be said to have passed in their favour.

23. Consequently, the statutory bar on grant of bail to the petitioners prevails at this stage, despite their length of detention since their arrest on 12.07.2025. As the charge- sheet has just been filed and trial has not yet commenced, therefore, it cannot also be said that, at this stage, the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India would prevail over and defeat the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

24. Consequently, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, I am unable to accept this subsequent bail petition also and the same accordingly stands rejected at this stage.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant