[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 27 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010041732026
2026:GAU-AS:4480
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./614/2026
AHMED HUSSAIN ALIAS AHMOD HUSSAIN
S/O LATE FOYAZ ALI
R/O VILL- KHURAKUNA
P.O. TILABAZAR
P.S. KARIMGANJ (NOW SRIBHUMI)
DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MISS. P M AHMED,U U
KHAN,MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
27.03.2026
Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/6
2. This petition arises out of Special (NDPS) Case No. 44/2025, arising out of
Karimganj PS Case No. 221/2025, registered under Section 22(C)/29 of the
Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending in the Court of
Special Judge, Sribhumi.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent
from the records that the petitioner has been apprehended after 10:40 am, but
prior to 12:30 pm on 12.05.2025. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the arresting authority had to produce the petitioner
before the learned Remand Court within a period of 24 hours from at least 12:30
pm on 12.05.2025. However, the scanned copies of the records received from
the Trial Court also reveal that the petitioner had been, in fact, moved out of the
Police Station on 13.05.2025, at about 03:10 pm. The arrest memo records the
arrest of the petitioner on 13.05.2025, at 10:20 am.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner
was not produced before the learned Remand Magistrate within 24 hours of him
being apprehended in connection with the aforesaid case, the detention of the
petitioner, thereafter, becomes illegal and unconstitutional and therefore, the
petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that
since the arrest memo reflects the time of arrest as- 10:20 am on 13.05.2025,
the period of 24 hours would start from 10:20 am on 13.05.2025, and, therefore,
Page No.# 3/6
it can be well established that the petitioner had been produced before the
learned Remand Magistrate before the expiry of the 24 hours as laid down by
the relevant law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment of the
Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement -Vs- Subhash Sharma in Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1136/2023), to assert before this Court, the time
of apprehension of the arrested person is of paramount interest while calculating
the period of 24 hours within which he is required to be produced before the
learned Remand Magistrate. In the case of Subhash Sharma (supra), the Apex
Court observed that when the physical custody of the respondent therein has
been taken over by the appellant at 11:00 hours on 5th of March, 2022, the
production before the learned Remand Magistrate was required to be done
within 24 hours from 11:00 am on 5th of March, 2022. In the case of Subhash
Sharma (supra) also, though the physical custody had been taken over on 5th
of March, 2022, the arrest memo was prepared at 01:15 hours on 6th of March,
2022. It was the stand of the Directorate of Enforcement therein, that the period
of 24 hours had not passed from the preparation of the arrest memo.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in NDPS cases,
some time is required to prepare the necessary formal documents and also
other investigative procedures take some time, for which the arrest cannot be
done immediately upon the apprehension, and, therefore, some extension of
time is called for.
Page No.# 4/6
8. Although the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor may be
correct that some time may be required for carrying out the investigation or
preparation of documents, the legislature in its wisdom has laid down a time
frame of 24 hours for production of an arrested person before the learned
Remand Magistrate after his arrest. In the present case, it is seen that the
petitioner had been apprehended at least prior to 12:30 am on 12.05.2025, and
therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was required
to be produced before the learned Remand Magistrate, on or before 12:30 am
on 13.05.2025. Apparently, the said period has been exceeded by the arresting
authority and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the further detention of
the petitioner, thereafter, would be rendered unconstitutional. Accordingly, this
Court directs that the petitioner is found to be entitled to the privilege of bail.
9. 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 trial and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned
Trial Court as and when directed to do so.
This court therefore directs that the petitioner, namely, Ahmed Hussain @
Ahmod Hussain, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 44/2025, arising
out of Karimganj PS Case No. 221//2025, under Section 22 (C)/29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, 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
Page No.# 5/6
the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property,
to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi under the
following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating
officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi without prior
written permission;
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, Sribhumi.
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, Sribhumi and shall not change the said
residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, NDPS,
Sribhumi. Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi 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
Page No.# 6/6
Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi as and when required to do so;
viii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Sribhumi 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 trial.
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.
10. The bail petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
