This bail application in a narcotics possession case dismissed allegations regarding discrepancies in arrest timing and improper notice service. The court noted the wife informed police she was out of station and upheld production within 24 hours, rejecting the application due to suspected intermediate quantity.
Application for bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC040014352026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : BA/85/2026
Nang Padmani Choutang
Wife of Shri Osina Choutang, resident of Solungtoo Village, PO Lathao, PS Namsai, Namsai District, Arunachal Pradesh.
VERSUS
The State of AP represented through the PP of AP
Advocate for the Petitioner : Duge Soki, Moken Lollen,Terjum Nima,O Deori
Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
ORDER
Date : 14.09.2026
Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., representing the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for bail of the accused-applicant in connection with Namsai P.S. Case No. 51/2026, registered under Sections 21(b)/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. An FIR was lodged on 04.08.2026, before the Officer In-charge, Namsai Police
Page No.# 2/4
Station, alleging, inter alia that police after receipt of certain confidential information about possession of narcotic contraband material, raided the house of the accused-applicant and they recovered a total amount of suspected heroin in six blue/slate-coloured rectangular plastic soap cases, total net weight of the suspected heroin was 72 grams.
4. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Namsai Police Station Case No. 51/2026 under the aforementioned sections.
5. The accused-applicant was arrested on the same date, i.e., on 04.08.2026 and he was forwarded to the court of JMFC, Namsai on 05.08.2026 and the learned court of JMFC, Namsai, remanded him to judicial custody on the same date and since then, the accused-applicant is behind the bars.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant submits that the arrest of the accused-applicant is illegal as the timing of his arrest has been shown in different documents differently. He submits that in the arrest-challan, the time of his arrest has been shown at 23.05 hrs, on 05.08.2026, whereas in the arrestmemo, the time has shown as 05.08.2026 at 00.2 hrs. He further submits that from the FIR, it is seen that the accused-applicant was detained on 04.08.2026 at 10.30 to 11 PM. He, therefore, submits that the difference of the timing of the arrest in different documents, itself, is a ground for declaring the arrest to be illegal.
7. In addition to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the accusedapplicant further submits that the Section 48 notice was not given to his wife who was very much available in the town on that date. He submits that Section 48 notice was given to one person who, the Investigating Agency claimed to be his cousin brother but, actually he is not related to the accused-applicant. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, he submits that the whole arrest is not in compliance with the procedure as prescribed in the BNSS and therefore, the accused-applicant
Page No.# 3/4
should be granted bail.
8. The Case Diary in the instant case has been received.
9. On the other hand, Mr. T. Ete, learned Addl. P.P., submits that the arrest has been done in terms of the laid down procedure in BNSS as well as the guidelines provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. He submits that though in different documents, the timing of the arrest may have been different but the same is not a ground for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail as the accused-applicant has been produced before the court of JMFC, Namsai, within 24 hours of his arrest. He further submits that as far as the notice under Section 48 is concerned, the notice could not be served upon the wife of the accused-applicant as though the accused-applicant had provided the phone number of his wife and the Investigating Agency when contacted the wife, the wife stated to have said that she was out of station. Accordingly, the Section 48 notice was given to one of his cousin, namely, Chow Tong Chowtang. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in arrest of the accused-applicant. He further submits that the quantity that has been recovered from the house of the accused-applicant is of intermediate quantity and therefore, at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail.
10. This court has perused the Case Diary and has also considered the submissions made by the respective parties.
11. It is seen from the Case Diary that Section 48 notice has been duly served upon one Chow Tong Chowtang, claimed to be a cousin brother of the accusedapplicant. It is also seen from the Case Diary that the wife of the accused-applicant was intimated about the arrest of the accused-person but, she herself intimated police that she was out of station.
12. As far as the different timings of arrest in documents, namely, the FIR, arrest-
Page No.# 4/4
challan and arrest-memo are concerned, that may not be fatal if the accused is produced before the JMFC, Namsai within 24 hours and those issues can be raised on a later stage during the trial.
13. Taking into account the entire facts of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the accused-applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether discrepancies in arrest timing across documents render the arrest illegal warranting bail.
Whether failure to serve Section 48 notice on the wife due to notification of being out of station vitiates the arrest procedure.
Whether the quantity of suspected heroin recovered justifies refusal of bail at the ad-interim stage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nang Padmani Choutang
The State of AP
Anjan Moni Kalita
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
