Bail Appln./2540/2026 of SHRI MAKHAN SINGH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 02.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and P.S. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, DRI, for the respondent.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused-applicant, namely, Shri Makhan Singh, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.

140/2025, under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 corresponding to DRI Guwahati Seizure Case No. 17/ CL/ NDPS/ GANJA/ DRI/ GZU/2024-25, pending before the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. The petitioner was intercepted, along with another co-accused on 03.12.2024, while he was coming in his Truck bearing Registration No. PB-12-Y- 3185 coming from Nagaon side and were apprehended at Khanapara, Guwahati and upon search a commercial quantity of ganja was recovered from the Truck, the net weight of which was found to be 1069.900 kgs.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amongst other grounds, the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that he was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Referring to the panchnama, it is pointed out that the Truck was intercepted at around 12:30 PM on 03.12.2024 and the DRI officials, along with the petitioner arrived at the DRI Office at around 1:45 PM on 03.12.2024. Subsequently, as per the medical report, the requisition for medical examination was received at 12:30 PM on 04.12.2024, but the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on 04.12.2024, obviously, after 12:30 PM, i.e., the time of his medical examination, which is way beyond 24 hours of the time of the effective detention of the petitioner which at the very latest was at 1:45 PM on 03.12.2024 and, therefore, the period of 24 hours expired at 1:45 AM on 04.12.2024, but the petitioner was produced more than 8 hours after expiry of the aforesaid period of 24 hours which is in violation of the statutory provisions under Section 58 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as well as the constitutional provision of Article 22 (2).

5. This Court in B.A. No. 2057 of 2026 had granted bail to the co-accused Sri Raj Kumar, who stands on a similar footing as the petitioner in the present case by order dated 11.08.2026, after perusing the materials on record and finding force in the similar submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which could not be rebutted by the prosecution, in the light of the decisions of Apex Court in "Niranjan Singh and Anr. Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Ors." reported in "(1980) 2 SCC 559;" and "Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma" reported in "2025 SCC OnLine SC 240" and the case of "Suman Uddin Vs. State of Assam [Bail Appln./4052/2025]" decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.01.2026.

6. It is the time of effective custody where from the clock starts ticking and not from the time of formal arrest as may be shown in the arrest memo or other documents. The Investigating Agency had the entire working day of 03.12.2024 to produce the petitioner before the Magistrate having taken him into custody during the night time itself, but failed to do so and, thereby, violated the statutory as well as constitutional mandate as referred to above, thereby, rendering the arrest of the petitioner illegal.

7. In view of the above the prayer for bail stands allowed.

8. Therefore, it is directed that the above-named accused-applicant shall be released forthwith from the judicial custody on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with two local sureties of like nature, at least one of whom should be a Government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned

Special Judge, (NDPS), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, subject to the following conditions: (i) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; (ii) The accused applicant shall not hamper or tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed.

10. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant