Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./217/2026 of HOZROT ALI ALIAS HAJRAT ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 16 February 2026
GAHC010011162026 2026:GAU-AS:2472 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./217/2026 HOZROT ALI ALIAS HAJRAT ALI S/O- LATE KOBAD HUSSAIN KOBAT ALI,R/O- SHILAPANITULUPARA P.O. LAKHIPUR, P.S-LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT - GOALPARA, ASSAM.
GAHC010011162026
2026:GAU-AS:2472
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./217/2026
HOZROT ALI ALIAS HAJRAT ALI
S/O- LATE KOBAD HUSSAIN KOBAT ALI,R/O- SHILAPANITULUPARA
P.O. LAKHIPUR, P.S-LAKHIPUR, DISTRICT - GOALPARA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR J ISLAM,E BEGUM
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
Date : 17.02.2026 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the petitioner, namely, Hozrot Ali @ Hajrat Ali, who has been shown arrested on 24.11.2025, in connection with Gauripur P.S. Case No. 500 of 2025 under Sections 22(b)/22(c)/25/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act,
1985, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1640/2025.
3. It is noticed that the petitioner was arrested on 22nd of November, 2025 and he was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate on 24th of November, 2025. In the forwarding report of the accused the arresting authority had made a statement that as they were busy with another case investigation, there was delay to submit the FIR.
4. This Court notices that the arrest had been done on 22nd of November, 2025, making a statement in the FIRthat the petitioner had been already apprehended, therefore, from the above circumstances it is evident that the accused petitioner had not been produced before the learned Remand Magistrate within a period of 24 hours on the date of his being taken into custody.
5. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Subhash Sharma reported in AIRONLINE 2025 SC 355; the detention of the accused petitioner beyond the period of 24 hours from being taken into custody, is found illegal.
6. In such circumstances since the arrest in such cases could be vitiated the petitioner is found entitled to bail. This Court, thus, directs that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Dhubri and also subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri without prior written permission;
(ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case;
(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;
(iv) That the petitioner shallprovide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card, mobile number, and other contact details before the learned Trial Court, if the same are not seized by the concerned officials;
(vi) That the petitioner shall furnish his current address and active mobile number and shall keep the same operational.
(vii) That the petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, as and when directed to do so;
(viii) That the petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future.
(ix) That the prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail.
7. It is noticed that the production of the arrestee after 24 hours before the learned Remand Magistrate has not been explained by the arresting authority and only a delay in lodging of the FIR have been placed before the learned Remand Magistrate.
8. The copy of this order be sent to the Office of the Directorate General of Police, Assam from the Registry for their information.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the matter has prayed for an opportunity to go through the scanned copies, but in view of the circumstances that the copies annexed to the petition appear to be copies of the certified copies of the original documents and the matter relates to the Right to Liberty of a citizen, this Court did not wait for the receipt of the scanned copies and have passed the orders hereinabove.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of this Court, if the documents annexed to the bail petition are not true copies of the original records.
11. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant