Bail Appln./2306/2026 of VINIT KUMAR YADAV Vs STATE OF ASSAM on 16 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. T. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, 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 Vinit Kumar Yadav, who was arrested on

24.05.2026 in connection with Gossaigaon P.S. Case No. 99/2026 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling was intercepted at Damrapara Naka checking point on 23.05.2026 at about 11.40 a.m. and 30,000 bottles of codeine phosphate and tripolidine hydrochloride syrup (Eskuf) of 100 ml each were recovered and seized from the said vehicle and the petitioner was taken into custody.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner after his apprehension was not produced before the Magistrate within a period of 24 hours as required by law and hence the arrest stands vitiated.

5. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and perused. A perusal of the FIR indicates the date and time of arrest of the petitioner was 11.40 a.m. on 23.05.2026 and therefore, the period of 24 hours within which the present petitioner was required to be produced before the Magistrate would have expired at 11.40 a.m. on 24.05.2026, except the time required for travelling from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate. Although in the forwarding report, the date and time of arrest shown on 24.05.2026 at 11.30 a.m., It is settled law as held in Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors :1980 INFSC 44 and Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhas Sharma: 2025 (SC) 137 that the time of arrest is to be reconed from the time when the petitioner was taken into custody of the police, from which time he was not free to move. Therefore, time of effective detention/ custody is to be reconed from 11.40 a.m. on 23.05.2026 i.e. the time of interception of the said vehicle as from that point of time onwards, the petitioner could not have been free to move on his own accord and therefore, he was effectively under detention.

6. The record was called for to ascertain as to the actual time when the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate.

7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor with reference to the case dairy fairly submits that as per the case diary entry, the petitioner was taken from the police station to be produced before the Magistrate at 2.30 pm on 24.05.2026 and therefore, he was definitely not produced before the Magistrate within the aforesaid period of 24 hours.

8. Perusal of the said G.D. Entry, reveals the same to be correct. In view of the above, it appears that arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated, in view of the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India due to failure to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate within 24 hours from his arrest. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

9. Having regard to the above the prayer for bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two securities of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge (NDPS), Kokrajhar in connection with the aforementioned case. It is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the I.O. for further investigation as and when called by the IO and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation of the case in any manner and shall not intimidate any persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall cooperate in the trial as and when trial commences.

10. The petition stands allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant