SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9605

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Anjan Moni Kalita, J
Bijay Gupta – Appellant
Versus
NCB – Respondent
Bail Appln./560/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: N Dubey
For the Respondents: R.K.D. Choudhury

An arrest made in violation of the mandatory procedural requirements under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, specifically the lack of witness attestation on the arrest memo, renders the arrest illegal and overrides the restrictive provisions for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 - Sections 36, 58 and 62 - Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Illegal arrest - Violation of mandatory procedure regarding arrest memo - Failure to obtain witness signature on arrest memo as required under Section 36 of BNSS vitiates the arrest - Non-compliance with statutory provisions renders arrest illegal, bypassing the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Fundamental rights under Art. 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India emphasized.

Facts of the case:
The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with an NDPS case involving 0.673 Kgs of Heroin. A prior bail application was rejected by the Court. The applicant renewed his plea on the ground that his constitutional and statutory rights under BNSS 2023 were violated during his arrest, specifically that the arrest memo lacked the mandatory witness attestation required by Section 36 of the BNSS, rendering the entire arrest illegal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that Section 36 of the BNSS mandates that an arrest memo must be attested by at least one witness. Since the investigation agency failed to secure any witness signature on the arrest memo, the arrest was held to be illegal. Consequently, the restrictive conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to an illegal arrest.

Issues: Whether the failure to adhere to the procedural requirements of Section 36 of the BNSS during arrest entitles the accused to bail notwithstanding the commercial quantity of narcotics involved.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory procedural safeguard, such as the requirement for witness attestation in an arrest memo, is a constitutional necessity. Non-compliance with this procedure renders the arrest illegal, granting the accused the right to be released on bail despite the severity of the charges under the NDPS Act.

Result: Bail granted.

Table of Content
1. summary of case background and previous bail proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. contentions regarding violation of procedural rights during arrest. (Para 8 , 9)
3. judicial finding that procedural non-compliance vitiates the legality of arrest. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. granting of bail due to illegal arrest procedures. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER

Heard Mr. N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI for NCB.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused-applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 16/2024, registered under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 12/2023, pending before the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The case was registered as NCB Crime No. 7/2025, under the aforementioned sections before the aforesaid Trial Court.

3. The accused-applicant was arrested on 02.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

4. It is seen from the records that the accused-applicant, approached this Court for his bail, by way of filing a bail application being Bail Appln. No. 2613/2025. However, vide order dated 11.09.2025, this Court had rejected his prayer for bail.

5. The matter relates to recovery of 0.673 Kgs of Heroin, which is much more than commercial quantity as prescribed under the NDPS Act, 1985, from the conscious possession of the accused-applicant and another co-accused from Room No. 16 of Goswami Lodge near Down Town, Guwahati on 01.08.2025, while the accused applicant was staying in the said Lodge along with another co-accused, namely, Seikhongam Haokip. Both the accused persons arrived at Guwahati from Manipur in a Maruti Gypsy, bearing Registration No. MN-03-5705.

6. On being tested by the Drug Detection Kit, from each of the 59 nos. of soap cases, from which the said Heroin was recovered, the same gave positive result for Heroin. Accordingly, the aforesaid contraband materials contained in the soap cases were seized from the conscious possession of the accused persons. The investigating authority had seized the Maruti Gypsy vehicle, mobile phones, Driving Licenses etc, from the accused persons. It is also seen that FSL report dated 06.11.2023, pertaining to the seized contraband narcotics recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant, gave positive result of Heroin. After completion of the investigation, offence report was submitted before the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) against the accused persons, including the accused-applicant, under Sections 20(c)/21(c)/29 of NDPS Act on 23.02.2024.

7. It is also seen from the records that prosecution has already examined 5(five) of it’s witnesses till date.

8. Mr. N. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant has submitted that though the bail applications of the accused-applicant were rejected on earlier occasions that does not preclude this Court from considering the instant bail on certain different considerations and if, some distinct grounds are taken for seeking bail, the same can be considered on the new grounds. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579. The learned counsel has further submitted that the instant bail application has been filed, praying for bail of the accused-applicant on the ground that at the time of his arrest, his constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory rights guaranteed under Sections 36 and 58 of the BNSS, 2023, were violated and therefore, the whole arrest itself got vitiated and on that ground alone, the accused-applicant is entitled to get bail. The learned counsel submits that while the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top