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) 9616

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Anjan Moni Kalita, J
Seikhongam Haokip – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Bail Appln./609/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A Chaudhury, D Bora, N Mahajan, P K Das
For the Respondents: SC, NCB

Non-compliance with the mandatory arrest procedures prescribed under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, renders an arrest illegal, which entitles the accused to be released on bail, notwithstanding the restrictive conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 36, 58 and 62 - NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Illegal arrest - Failure to comply with mandatory provisions of arrest - Arrest memo not attested by witnesses - Violation of fundamental rights. (Paras 14, 16, 18, 21)

(B) Bail - Second/subsequent application - Not barred if new grounds are taken - Rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India mandate strict compliance with procedural laws during arrest - Non-compliance with arrest procedures renders the arrest illegal, overriding the rigours of special statutes. (Paras 12, 18, 22)

Facts of the case:
The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with a case involving the seizure of 0.673 Kgs of Heroin. His prior bail applications had been rejected. The current bail application was filed on the ground that his constitutional and statutory rights under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were violated during his arrest, specifically noting that the arrest memo was not attested by any witness and that he was not produced before a Magistrate within the mandatory timeline.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that Section 36 of the BNSS mandates that an arrest memo must be attested by at least one witness. The arresting authority failed to comply with this requirement, rendering the arrest illegal. Consequently, the Court determined that the restrictive provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when the initial arrest itself is found to be in violation of mandatory procedural law.

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 36 and 62 of the BNSS, 2023, vitiates an arrest, thereby entitling an accused to bail despite the recovery of commercial quantities of narcotics.

Ratio Decidendi: The procedure of arrest as defined in Section 36 of the BNSS is mandatory. Any deviation from these procedures renders the arrest illegal, and when an arrest is illegal, the accused has an unfettered right to be set at liberty on bail, irrespective of the nature of the offence or the existence of restrictive bail provisions in special statutes.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. case facts and procedural history concerning multiple bail rejections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. parties' contentions regarding illegal arrest procedures and narcotics seizure. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court rules that procedural non-compliance during arrest mandates bail. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. directives for release on bail with specific conditions attached. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER

Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, 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 01.08.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody.

4. It is seen from the records that the accused-applicant had earlier on 3(three) occasions, approached this Court for his bail, however, on all three occasions, his prayers for bail were rejected on 14.11.2024, 13.05.2025 and 01.05.2025 respectively.

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, Bijoy Gupta. 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. B. K. Mahajan, 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

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