Bail Appln./2316/2026 of ANIL BORAH Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 2 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. P.P for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant/accused, namely, Anil Borah, in connection with

Special NDPS Case No. 02/2026, arising out of Majuli P.S. Case No. 14/2026 dated 02.05.2026, registered under Sections 20 (c)/ 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Sections 4/5 of the Assam Ganja and Bhang Prohibition Act, 1958 after completion of investigation and submission of the charge-sheet No. 12/2026 dated 24.06.2026.

3. The petitioner had been arrested on 02.05.2026.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the first time that the petitioner is praying for regular bail and, therefore, the question of having had an opportunity to take up this ground on an earlier occasion does not and cannot arise.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from the records that the contraband had been shown to be seized at 7:00 am along with the arrested accused.

6. However, the arrest memo had been prepared on 03.05.2026, and the petitioner was also produced before the learned remand Magistrate on 03.05.2026. The learned Counsel has submitted that the petitioner, having been taken into custody/arrested on 02.05.2026 at 7:00 am in the morning, their production before the learned remand Magistrate after 24 hours had elapsed had vitiated the further custody of the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Counsel submits that the petitioner may be entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage.

7. I have considered the submissions made; I have also been assisted to go through the scanned copy of the TCR.

8. In the case referred to by the learned Addl. P.P, this Court had expressed a doubt on the plea of the wrong mentioning of time of arrest being noted in the arrest memo. However, in the present case it is seen that the seizure of the contraband had been made along with the presence of the apprehended accused petitioner herein, at around 7 am in the morning, and there can be no doubt in the mind of the Court that the moment the petitioner was restrained from exercising his right of free movement, the petitioner was deemed to be under arrest. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the petitioner was arrested at 7:00 am in the morning on 02.05.2026 and his formal arrest was recorded at around 10:00 pm on 02.05.2026.

9. The petitioner was produced before the learned remand Magistrate on 03.05.2026, and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was produced before 7:00 am on 03.05.2026. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the detention of the petitioner beyond a period of 24 hours from the time of his arrest has vitiated his further custody; however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the strict conditions are required to be imposed while granting him the privilege of bail.

10. Accordingly, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be a local surety to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Majuli.

11. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without the prior written permission.

12. The petitioner shall not in any manner hamper or tamper with the prosecution evidence sought to be led.

13. The learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the trial proceedings.

14. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant