Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2514/2026 of KRISHANRAM PRAJAPAT ALIAS KISHNARAM PRAJAPAT Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 22 September 2026
GAHC010181722026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2514/2026 KRISHANRAM PRAJAPAT ALIAS KISHNARAM PRAJAPAT SON OF LATE MANIKRAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LORDI PANDITJI, P.S. KARWAR, DISTRICT JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN.
GAHC010181722026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2514/2026
KRISHANRAM PRAJAPAT ALIAS KISHNARAM PRAJAPAT
SON OF LATE MANIKRAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LORDI PANDITJI, P.S.
KARWAR, DISTRICT JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K BORUAH, B PRASAD,MS. M BHUYAN,MS. P
BORAH,MR. M ALAM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 23.09.2026 Heard Mr. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the petitioner namely Krishanram Prajapat @ Krishnaram Prajapat, who was arrested on 19.04.2026 in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 75/2026 registered under Section 318(4) of the BNSS, 2023, read with
Section 18 (b) of NDPS Act,1985.
3. It is submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certified copies of the relevant documents annexed with the bail petition, would reveal that the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution has been violated.
5. On perusal of the seizure memo, it appears that the date and time of the seizure has been shown as 18.04.2026 at 11.30 p.m. and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been produced within 24 hours which time expires at 11.30 p.m. on 19.04.2026. However, the forwarding report reveals that the petitioner was actually produced before the Magistrate on 20.04.2026. It is evident that since a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs were allegedly recovered from the vehicle of the petitioner, the petitioner would be under detention effectively from the time of interception of the vehicle which is shown to be 09:40 p.m. on 18.04.2026 in the FIR. It is also stated in the FIR that after completion of all formalities, the informant alongwith the apprehended accused person proceeded towards O.P. at about 01:30 a.m.on 19.04.2026.
6. From the above, it is evident that the petitioner was under detention at least from 01.30 a.m. on 19.04.2026 and reconing time of arrest from that point, the period of 24 hours as mandated by Article 22 of the Constitution of India would expire at 01.30 a.m. on 20.04.2026 but the petitioner was evidently produced before the Magistrate on 20.04.2026 at least after commencement of court hours.
7. Having regard to the above, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apext Court in Niranjan Singh & Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors, reported in 1980 INSC 44, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kokrajhar in connection with the aforementioned case.
8. It is provided that the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial as and when trial commences and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation of the case in any manner and shall not intimidate to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
9. The petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant