Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1403
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Shri Asem Kanan Singh Alias Ashem Kanan Singh, S/o. Asem Indramani Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Represented By Special P.P. Central Bureau Of Investigation – Respondent
Crl.Pet./844 of 2026
Decided On : 17-07-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Remand
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.437(5), S.439(2)
Headnote
(B) Bail Cancellation - Distinction between Merit and Technicality - Cancellation based on conduct (e.g., witness intimidation or evasion of justice) differs fundamentally from re-arrest following a release based on curable procedural defects or technicalities. (Para 17, 18)
Issues: Whether a separate order of cancellation of bail is mandatory before the investigating agency can re-arrest an accused who was granted bail on technical grounds.
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.G. Singh, Mr. K. Barman, Mr. R. Sekhar
For the Respondent: SC, CBI.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of arrest, bail granted on technicality, and subsequent re-arrest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments on whether bail cancellation is a prerequisite for re-arrest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. analysis of statutory provisions and precedents regarding bail cancellation and custody. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. distinction between merit-based bail and technical release regarding re-arrest requirements. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition based on the absence of legal infirmity. (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Heard Mr. M.G. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned counsel for CBI.
2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the Order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati, Assam in connection with RC6(S)/2023/CBI/SCB/Kolkata, whereby the prayer for issuance of production warrant was allowed and by the same order, an application by the CBI for re-arresting the petitioner was allowed.
3. The CBI has filed a written objection to the instant criminal petition opposing the prayer of the petitioner.
4. On 17.01.2026, while the petitioner was already in custody in connection with another case, namely RC-29(S)/2023/CBI/SCB/Kolkata, the Investigating Officer, on 17.01.2026, preferred an application before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati seeking issuance of a production warrant for producing the Petitioner before the said Court in connection with RC-6(S)/2023/CBI/SCB/Kolkata dated 09.06.2023.
5. The said application was allowed by Order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) pursuant to which the petitioner was formally arrested in RC-6(S)/2023/CBI/SCB/Kolkata purportedly on the strength of another order of even date permitting such arrest shown to have been passed at 12:30 PM. The petitioner was present and heard through video conferencing from Central Jail, Guwahati. However, in the arrest memo, the time of arrest was shown as 12:25 PM on that date, i.e., 17.01.2026.
6. Contending that the arrest of the petitioner on 17.01.2026 at 12:25 PM was illegal and without authority of law, inasmuch as, the order permitting arrest was passed only at 12:30 PM., a bail application was preferred before the learned Special Judge, CBI which court accepted the said contention and granted bail to the petitioner by order dated 29.05.2026 in Misc. Case (CBI) No. 02/2026. However, in the said order it was observed as follows:
"In view of the above, though by today's order dated 29.05.2026, the bail of the accused has been granted in view of technicalities and procedural defect depriving the liberty of the accused, CBI (investigating authority) shall not be precluded from again approaching the Court for issuance of production warrant and to seek arrest of the accused in connection with the present case by following the procedure established by law."
7. Subsequently, the CBI filed an application on 02.06.2026 seeking issuance of a production warrant against the petitioner and permission to re-arrest him in connection with RC-6S/2023/CBI/SCB/Kolkata i.e., the later case.
8. It is pertinent to mention here in that the petitioner continued to remain in custody even after grant of bail by Order dated 29.05.2026, as the bail bond submitted by him was found to be deficient/defective and subsequently too, because no bail bond was presented on account of undertaking given by the petitioner not to submit bail bond, till disposal of the aforesaid application for production warrant and re-arrest was disposed of by the Court.
9. By Order dated 04.06.2026, the aforesaid application of the CBI was allowed. The production warrant as sought for was issued and the CBI was permitted to re-arrest the petitioner and accordingly upon being re-arrested was again remanded to custody till 18.06.2026 and such remand of the petitione
