Meghalaya High Court
District Kamrup (M) vs Meghalaya on 6 July, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:667
Serial No. 10
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
BA. No. 43 of 2026
Date of Decision: 06.07.2026
Deepa Hazarika
Aged about 50 years
Wife of Dip Hazarika
Resident of Zoo Narangi Road
Geetanagar, Chinakipath, P.S. Geetanagar
District Kamrup (M), Assam
...... Petitioner
- Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya,
Represented by the Public Prosecutor,
Meghalaya
...... Opposite Party
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv with
Mr. H. Kalita, Adv.
Mr. S. Chowdhury, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Gurung, GA.
Mr. H. Kharmih, Addl. PP.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
1
2026:MLHC:667
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, who
has submitted that this petition has been filed on behalf of the accused, Dip
Hazarika, who was arrested on 13.06.2026 and is still in custody till date in
connection with Tura P.S Case No. 70/2026 under Section
336(2)(3)/318(4)/338/111(2)(b) BNS, 2023.
2. It is the submission of the learned Sr. counsel that the case imamates
from the FIR dated 13.06.2026 lodged by UBSI Gaurav B. Koch of Tura Police
Station, the case essentially being that of fraud said to have been committed on
one person by the name of Sonu Banlae to the tune of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees three
lakhs) only, the name of the accused has been of the petitioner has also appeared
as one of the accused persons involved in the case.
3. The learned Sr. counsel has further submitted that the accused
husband of the petitioner (referred to as accused hereinafter) was firstly detained
at Greenwood Hotel, Guwahati Assam on 12.06.2026 at about 10:00 to 10:30
AM, without producing him before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the
place of arrest, he was straight away taken to Tura, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya,
and by way of a forwarding report dated 13.06.2026 filed before the learned
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Garo Hills, Tura, a prayer was made
to remand the accused to police custody for a period of 7(seven) days.
2
2026:MLHC:667
4. It is the contention of the learned Sr. counsel that the whole process
of arrest and custodial incarceration of the accused person is a violation of the
due process of law and the relevant provision of the Constitution of India as well
as that of the BNSS, 2023. In this regard, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted
that Section 48 of the BNSS have been violated, inasmuch as, at the time of his
arrest, it is the duty of the police to inform the relatives, friends or such other
person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose
of giving such information, which was not done so in the case of the accused
person herein. This is also a violation of the principle laid down in the case of
D.K. Basu vs. State of W.B (1997) 1 SCC 416, para 35(6), wherein the Supreme
Court has directed that “(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of
detention regarding the arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name
of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the
names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is”.
5. The next limb of argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel is
that there is a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused person,
inasmuch as, he was firstly detained by the police at Guwahati in the State of
Assam and without producing him before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for transit
remand, he was straight away taken to another State that is, Meghalaya and
3
2026:MLHC:667
produced before the learned CJM at Tura. This according to the learned Sr.
counsel, is a violation of the Constitutional Provision of Article 22 Clause 2,
which provides as follows:
“22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. –
(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be
produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four
hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey
from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such
person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without
the authority of a magistrate.”
6. The case of Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma was
cited by the learned Sr. counsel, wherein vide order dated 21.01.2025 passed in
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1136/2023 at para 5, 6, 7 and 8, the
Supreme Court has laid stressed on the application of the fundamental rights of
an accused person under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitutions of India and has
held that violation of such constitutional provision at the time of arrest of the
accused would enable him to be released on bail.
7. In view of the above, the learned Sr. counsel has submitted that the
caused of such serious procedural lapses affecting the fairness of the arrest of the
accused person herein, therefore, a prayer is made for grant of bail with any
conditions to be imposed by this Court, considering the fact that the accused
person is a permanent resident of Guwahati, Assam and has no criminal
antecedent, he is further committed to cooperate with the investigation and to
4
2026:MLHC:667
appear before the Investigating Officer (I/O) as and when required.
8. Per contra, Mr. R. Gurung, learned GA appearing on behalf of the
State respondent has fairly submitted that records would show that the accused
person was not produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate at Guwahati at the
time of his arrest. However, reference has been made to page 21 and 22 of this
petition, wherein is found annexed the Memorandum of Arrest and the details
therein, which would indicate that the arrested person was duly intimated of the
reason of his arrest and that his relatives who is his cousin brother has been duly
intimated of such arrest, his signature as Nitu Sarma being evident at page 22 of
this petition, therefore, it cannot be said that the direction of D.K. Basu case was
ever violated. It is therefore prayed that this petition is devoid of merits and the
same be dismissed.
9. This Court having heard the parties, and on perusal of the case diary
as well as the petition in hand, and considering the facts as revealed by the
learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, is convinced that the accused person herein
was intercepted and detained at the first instance at Greenwood Hotel, Guwahati,
in the State of Assam and was then taken directly to Tura in the West Garo Hills
District of Meghalaya where he was formally arrested. Between the time of his
detention and the actual time of arrest, notwithstanding the fact that he was never
produced before the Magistrate at the first instance, according to the petitioner,
5
2026:MLHC:667
the period of detention has cross 24 hours.
10. In the case of Biswajit Mandal v. Inspector, Narcotic Control
Bureau, Cochin Zonal Unit, vide order dated 12.08.2025 in BAIL APPL. No.
8581 of 2025, the Kerala High Court at para 20 of the same has held that the
period of 24 hours to produce the accused before the Magistrate runs from the
time when the accused was effectively detained. This proposition would apply
to the case of the accused person herein.
11. Without proceeding further, this Court is convinced that there have
indeed been procedural lapses on the part of the arresting authority as far as the
accused person is concerned, and as such, his arrest is not in accordance with
law. He is therefore entitled to be granted bail.
12. Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant is hereby allowed, the
accused person in question is hereby directed to be released on bail on the
following conditions:
i) That he shall not abscond or tamper with the evidence or
witnesses;
ii) That he shall attend court as and when called for;
iii) That he shall not leave the jurisdiction of Meghalaya and
Assam, except with due permission of the court concerned;
and
6
2026:MLHC:667
iv) That he shall bind himself on a personal bond of ₹ 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) only with two local sureties of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
13. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of accordingly. No
costs.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 7
Digitally signed by
DARIKORDOR NARY
Date: 2026.07.06 19:47:38 IST
