Gauhati High Court
Sri Sanjay Dohani vs Union Of India on 21 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010097572026
2026:GAU-AS:9958
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1300/2026
SRI SANJAY DOHANI
SON OF SHRI NAND KUMAR DOHANI, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. SF09, GOL
BAZAR ROAD, BEHIND SUVIDHA HOTEL, VILLAGE BILASPUR, PO
BILASPUR, POLICE STATION CITY KOTWALI, DISTRICT BILASPUR, STATE
CHHATTISGARH, PIN-495001
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF
REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, CHRISTIAN BASTI,
G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K BAIDYA, P MAZUMDAR,MR. M SARMA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI,
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
ORDER
21.07.2026
Heard Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Kayal, learned
Senior Counsel for DRI.
Page No.# 2/10
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for the grant of bail to
the accused/petitioner, Sanjay Dohani arrested on 13.04.2026 in connection with DRI Case No.
01/CL/ND&PS?CANNIBIS/DRI/GZU/2026-27 for contravention of the provision of Section 8(c) of
the ND&PS Act, 1985 and Punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 23(b) & 29 of the ND&PS Act,
1985 pending before the Hon’ble Special Judge, ND&PS, Kamrup(M).
3. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the initial complaint/FIR filed before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati, is that on 12.04.2026 the officers of the Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, allegedly received specific intelligence to the effect that
one passenger namely Sri Sanjay Dohani, arriving from Bangkok, Thailand, by Air Asia Flight No. FD-
124 at Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport, Guwahati, would be carrying hydroponic
weed/cannabis concealed in his baggage for the purpose of illegal transportation into India. Acting
upon such information, the DRI officials along with independent witnesses intercepted the petitioner
after his arrival at the airport and thereafter escorted him along with his baggage to the office premises
of the DRI, Guwahati for detailed examination.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that upon examination of one navy blue coloured backpack
and one black coloured trolley suitcase allegedly carried by the petitioner, certain concealed packets
containing greenish lumpy substance suspected to be hydroponic weed/cannabis were recovered from
inside food packets and from concealed cavities allegedly created within the trolley suitcase. The
prosecution has further alleged that the recovered substance, upon weighment, was found to be 2.060
kilograms and upon field testing through Narcotic Drugs Detection Kit, the same tested positive for
cannabis/hydroponic weed. Thereafter, the respondent authority seized the aforesaid suspected
contraband along with baggage articles, mobile phones, travel documents and other personal effects
under the provisions of the NDPS Act and subsequently arrested the petitioner in connection with DRI
Page No.# 3/10
Case No. 01/CL/NDPS/CANNABIS/DRI/GZU/2026-27 dated 13.04.2026 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B),
23(b) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
5. Following the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid DRI Case No.
01/CL/NDPS/CANNABIS/DRI/GZU/2026-27 dated 13.04.2026, the petitioner was produced before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati on 14.04.2026 along with the
forwarding report, seizure records and remand prayer submitted by the Investigating Officer/respondent
authority seeking custodial detention of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation of the case. Upon
consideration of the materials so placed, the learned Court was pleased to remand the petitioner to
judicial custody till 27.04.2026. The learned Court further directed the respondent authority to produce
the accused petitioner physically before the learned Elaka Magistrate on 17.04.2026 for the purpose of
drawal/sampling of the alleged seized narcotic substance in accordance with law. Since then, the
petitioner has been languishing in custody in connection with the instant case.
6. Mr. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner has based his arguments on three grounds. Firstly, it
is contended that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate beyond 24 hours of his arrest,
which is violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and in view of infringement of his
constitutional as well as statutory rights, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The second ground is that the
notice under Section 48 of the BNSS said to have been issued to the relative of the accused is not in
order, inasmuch as there is nothing to show that the same was served upon the family
members/friends/nominated person of the petitioner, thereby violating the directions of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana reported in (2025) LiveLaw SC 169.
Thirdly, it is submitted that the recovered quantity of Ganja is stated to be 2.60 kgs and therefore, the
said amount comes within the category of intermediate quantity and that too barely 60 grams above the
ceiling for small quantity. Therefore, having regard to the period of detention of more than 90 days, the
Page No.# 4/10
petitioner may be considered for release on bail on that ground alone.
6. The DRI has submitted its detailed objection and has produced the case records. Mr. S.C. Kayal,
learned Senior Counsel representing DRI submitted that after the petitioner had landed in Guwahati, he
voluntarily accompanied the DRI Officers to the DRI office at Guwahati and it was only after the
petitioner was questioned and he admitted to being in possession of the contraband and after due search
and seizure operation was carried out, that the DRI decided to place the petitioner under arrest, which
was done at 5 PM on 13.04.2026 and accordingly, he was produced on 14.04.2026 before the learned
CJM, Kamrup Metro on 14.04.2026 within 24 hours of his arrest. Hence, there can be said to be no
violation of either the constitutional or statutory provisions in this regard. The submissions of learned
Senior Counsel for the DRI with regard to the other contentions of the petitioner will be dealt with
later, if necessary.
7. The DRI in its final complaint has at para 8 thereof, referred to by learned Senior Counsel for DRI
has stated as follows:
“8. Your Honour, once the DRI officers were satisfied that the passenger was carrying
only one hand baggage (one navy-blue coloured ‘Safari’ backpack) and one checked-in
black coloured trolley suitcase, and in view of the specific intelligence, spot summons
Notice dated 12.04.2026 under the NDPS Act, 1985 was issued to Shri Sanjay Dohani.
On being requested, Shri Sanjay Dohani handed over his two mobile phones to the DRI
officers. Then the DRI officers requested him to accompany them to the DRI Office at
Mainaak Towers, Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Guwahati-781005 for detailed
examination of the two pieces of baggage/suitcases. The intercepted passenger agreed
and accompanied the DRI officers in a departmental vehicle. The independent witnesses
were also requested to accompany the officers along with the intercepted passenger and
his baggage, to which they agreed. At around 02:00 hours on 13.04.2026, the officers
reached the DRI office along with the witnesses, Shri Sanjay Dohani and his baggage.
Page No.# 5/10
At that time, in the presence of independent witnesses Shri Sanjay Dohani requested the
DRI officers to permit him to take some rest, stating that he had undertaken a long
international journey and had been travelling continuously since the late-night hours.
Considering his request, and in the interest of fairness and humane treatment, the DRI
officers acceded to the same and allowed him to rest along with his baggage for the
night at the DRI office. The witnesses were also requested to remain present at the DRI
office to witness the entire process of recovery and seizure. They agreed to do so and
stayed at the DRI office for the night.”
8. It is further stated in the Final Complaint that it was on 13.04.2026 at 11:30 hours at the DRI
office that the search procedure commenced in course of which personal search as well as search of the
baggage of the petitioner was conducted and the recovery of the contraband was made and the entire
seizure proceedings were concluded peacefully at around 14:30 hours on 13.04.2026 without any
damage or disturbance. The seizure proceedings concluded peacefully at around 14:30 hours on
13.04.2026, without any damage or disturbance.
9. Further at around 15:00 hours in the presence of independent witnesses, the statement of the
petitioner was recorded wherein he voluntarily admitted his conscious and willful possession and
transportation of the contraband recovered from him and thereafter, it was at around 1700 hours on
13.04.2026 that he was placed under arrest.
10. The elaborate explanation of the DRI as outlined above have been advanced with a view to show
that there was no delay on the part of the investigating agency in producing the petitioner before the
Magistrate and that he was produced within the prescribed period of 24 hours. The moot question,
however, is whether the petitioner can be said to have been in custody or under arrest, only from 17:00
hours on 13.04.2026 or whether he is to be regarded to have been in custody from the time when he
was intercepted by the DRI at the airport in Guwahati on the basis of prior information. This question
Page No.# 6/10
has been answered long back by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Niranjan Singh & Anr Vs
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors reported in (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was held as follows:
“7. When is a person in custody, within the meaning of Section 439 CrPC? When he is in
duress either because he is held by the investigating agency or other police or allied
authority or is under the control of the court having been remanded by judicial order, or
having offered himself to the court’s jurisdiction and submitted to its orders by physical
presence. No lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the
realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical
hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439. This
word is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that the law has taken control of the
person. The equivocatory quibblings and hide-and-seek niceties sometimes heard in
court that the police have taken a man into informal custody but not arrested him, have
detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and other like
terminological dubieties are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of the law. We
need not dilate on this shady facet here because we are satisfied that the accused did
physically submit before the Sessions Judge and the jurisdiction to grant bail thus arose.
8. Custody, in the context of Section 439, (we are not, be it noted, dealing with
anticipatory bail under Section 438) is physical control or at least physical presence of
the accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and orders of the
court.”
11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Subhash Sharma
reported in AIR OnLine 2025 SC 355 was observed as follows:-
“…..5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that
pursuant to the Look Out Circular (For short, ‘the LOC’) issued against the respondent,
he was detained at IGI Airport from 11.00 hours, on 5th March, 2022. But he was shown
as arrested at 01.15 hours on 6th March, 2022 by the appellant Enforcement
Page No.# 7/10Directorate and was produced before the Court of the learned Magistrate within 24
hours from 1.15 hours on 6th March, 2022.
6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the instance of
the appellant Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC, the Bureau of
Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of
the Appellant. The finding of fact recorded in paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the
physical custody of the respondent was taken over by the appellant from the Bureau of
Immigration at 11.00 hours on 5th March, 2022. Thereafter, at 1.15 hours on 6th March
2022, an arrest memo was prepared by ED at Raipur. He was produced before the Court
at 3 p.m. on 6th March, 2024. The perusal of the arrest order(Annexure p-1) shows that
the typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept blank which
appear to have been filled in by hand. Admittedly, the respondent was not produced
before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 11.00 a.m. on 5th March,
2022. Therefore, the arrest of the respondent is rendered completely illegal as a result of
the violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the continuation
of the respondent in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within
the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights
under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets
vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22(2)
of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21
has been violated.”
12. Although, it has been claimed in the Final Complaint that the petitioner had voluntarily
accompanied the DRI officials from the airport to the DRI office at Guwahati, to a pointed query from
the Court as to whether the petitioner was free to leave the company of the DRI officials after his
interception at the airport, the answer from learned Senior Counsel for DRI was expectedly less than
unequivocal. The Court therefore cannot presume anything other than the fact that the petitioner was
Page No.# 8/10
not free to do so.
13. Admittedly, the petitioner was intercepted at the exit gate of Lokpriya Gopinath Bordoloi
International Airport, Guwahati on 12.04.2026 at around 23:45 hours. After serving spot summons and
from that moment onwards, the petitioner was under the effective custody of the DRI and therefore,
allowing one hour for travel time, the petitioner ought to have been produced before the Magistrate at
00:45 hours i.e., 12:45 am on 14.04.2026. But admittedly, the petitioner was produced much later
during the daytime on 14.04.2025 before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro) and therefore, there is a
clear violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, causing consequent violation of his
fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
14. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the first ground alone and therefore, there
is no necessity of taking up the remaining contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner
and responded to by learned Senior Counsel for DRI.
15. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two
sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority in connection with the aforesaid
case.
16. Having regard to the circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of releasing the
petitioner on bail are required to be imposed to ensure his participation in the investigation and also to
ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when and if the petitioner is put up for
trial. This court therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs
1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall
be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government
and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge,
NDPS, Kamrup(M) under the following conditions:
Page No.# 9/10
i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the
Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) without prior written permission;
ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case;
iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer.
iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered) before the
Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M).
v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone,
social media etc.
vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the Learned Special
Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the
Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M). Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) shall be at
liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit.
vii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating authority and/or Learned Special Judge,
NDPS, Kamrup(M) as and when required to do so
viii) Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) shall be at liberty to impose such other
condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the
investigation.
ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future.
Page No.# 10/10
x) The investigating authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions
imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
