Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./2380/2026 of RAHUL TATE AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 25 August 2026
GAHC010170652026 2026:GAU-AS:12275 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2380/2026 RAHUL TATE AND ANR S/O ANIL BORAH, R/O VILL. PERABHARI, P.S. MAJULI, DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM. 2: BABU ALI S/O IMAN ALI R/O VILL. CHARPORIGON WARD
GAHC010170652026
2026:GAU-AS:12275
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2380/2026
RAHUL TATE AND ANR
S/O ANIL BORAH, R/O VILL. PERABHARI, P.S. MAJULI, DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM.
2: BABU ALI
S/O IMAN ALI
R/O VILL. CHARPORIGON
WARD NO 12
P.S. KHUMTAI
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., MR. U S BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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
26.08
. 2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. U.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, 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 applicants/accused, namely, Rahul Tate and Babu Ali, 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 ⅘ 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 petitioners had been arrested on 02.05.2026.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners 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.
5. However, the arrest memo had been prepared on 03.05.2026, and the petitioners were also produced before the learned remand Magistrate on 03.05.2026. The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioners, 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 petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner may be entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage.
6. The learned Addl. P.P has submitted that the petitioner had earlier moved bail petitions before the Courts of jurisdiction which were rejected and the ground of the delay in their production for remand had not been taken up therein.
7. The learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State of Assam has submitted that the present ground cannot be allowed to be taken by the petitioners in view of the order dated 03.06.2026 passed in B.A. No.980/2026, where this Court had held that had there been any wrong mentioning of time of arrest in the arrest memo, the petitioners ought to have taken up the said ground at the first opportunity and, therefore, there was a doubt regarding the veracity of the plea of the petitioners in that particular case. Accordingly, he submits that the prayer for bail of the petitioners in this case be rejected.
8. I have considered the submissions made; I have also been assisted to go through the scanned copy of the TCR.
9. 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 petitioners herein, at around in 7 am in the morning, and there can be no doubt in the mind of the Court that the moment the petitioners had been restrained from exercising their right of free movement, the petitioner were deemed to be under arrest. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the petitioners had been arrested at 7:00 am in the morning on 02.05.2025 and their formal arrest had been recorded at around 10:00 pm on 02.05.2026.
10. The petitioners were produced before the learned remand Magistrate on 03.05.2026, and it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners were produced before 7:00 am on 03.05.2026. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the detention of the petitioners beyond a period of 24 hours from the time of their arrest has vitiated their further custody; however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are alleged to be in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, the strict conditions are required to be imposed while granting them the privilege of bail.
11. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be a local surety in the case of each of the petitioners to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Court, Majuli.
12. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without the prior written permission.
13. The petitioners shall not in any manner hamper or tamper with the prosecution evidence sought to be led.
14. The learned Sessions Judge shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioners in the trial proceedings.
15. This bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant