Noor Ali vs The Union Of India And 12 Ors

Court
Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/25
GAHC010127432026

2026:GAU-AS:16236-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/28/2026
NOOR ALI
S/O- SURUJALI BHUYAN, R/O- VTC JAMUHANDAL, P.O. PADUM PUKHURI,
P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782435.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 12 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, PIN-
110001.
2:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
(PITNDPS)
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
2ND FLOOR
ROOM NO 202
JEEVAN TARA
BUILDING
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI
PIN- 110001.
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY- 06.
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

Page No.# 2/25
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GHY- 06
ASSAM
5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
CM BLOCK
SECOND FLOOR
DISPUR
GHY-6.
6:THE DETAINING AUTHORITY UNDER PITNDPS ACT AND THE
SECRETARY
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
CM BLOCK
2ND FLOOR
DISPUR
GHY 06
7:THE ADVISORY BOARD
(UNDER PITNDPS ACT)
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
HOME AND POLITICAL DEPARTMENT
GOVT OF ASSAM
ASSAM SECRETARIAT
CM BLOCK
2ND FLOOR
DISPUR
GHY
ASSAM- 781006.
8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HOJAI
SANKARDEV NAGAR
HOJAI
ASSAM- 782435.
9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GHY-07.

Page No.# 3/25
10:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CID)
ASSAM
ULUBARI
GHY- 07.
11:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CR)
NAGAON
ASSAM
12:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
HOJAI
SANKARDEV NAGAR
HOJAI
ASSAM- 782435.
13:THE SUPERINTENDENT
SPECIAL JAIL
NAGAON
FAUZDARIPATTY
NAGAON
PIN- 782003
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

For the petitioner : Mr. P.R. Sarma, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. B. Goswami, Addl. A.G.
: Mr. I. Borthakur, GA.

Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.09.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 05.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes

Page No.# 4/25
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J.)
Heard Mr. P.R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. B. Goswami, learned Addl. Advocate General, assisted by Mr. I. Borthakur,
learned Govt. Advocate for the State.
2) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner, namely, Noor Ali, who has been detained pursuant to
detention order no. eCF-632573/80 dated 17.10.2025, passed by the Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Political (A) Department, has assailed the said
detention order dated 17.10.2025; order no. eCF/ 632573/77 dated 17.10.2025,
containing the grounds of detention of the petitioner and for other reliefs.
3) As per the contents of the detention order dated 17.10.2025, a
police report and connected records were laid before the Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Political (A) Department (hereinafter referred to as “the
detaining authority”) by the following three authorities, viz., (i) the Inspector
General of Police (CR), Nagaon, Assam, vide letter no. CR/41-HJI/2025/95 dated
10.01.2025; (ii) the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, Assam, vide letter under
memo no. IV/HJI/Crime/2024/3373 dated 30.12.2024; and (iii) the Addl.
Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai, Assam, vide letter under Memo No.
IV/RS/HJI/2025/165 dated 15.05.2025. Thus, it was proposed to detain Nur Ali,
son of Suruj Ali, resident of Jamuhandal, P.S. and Dist. Hojai, Assam, with a
view to preventing him from engaging in illegal and harmful activities of illicit
business of narcotic drugs and from the repeated violations of the provisions
under the NDPS Act, 1985. The said detaining authority had also observed that

Page No.# 5/25
from the police reports and connected records, it appeared that the petitioner
has persistently involved himself with the crime of illegal business of narcotic
drugs since many years and was arrested in following cases, viz., (i) Hojai P.S.
Case No. 20/2023 under section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985; (ii) Hojai P.S.
Case No. 354/2023 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985; and (iii)
Lanka P.S. Case No. 351/2024 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The seized substances had tested positive for (i) cannabis (ganja), (ii)
methamphetamine, and (iii) heroin. Moreover, as intimated by the
Superintendent of Police, Hojai, Assam, in his letter dated 30.12.2024, that the
petitioner, Nur Ali has been found to be a repetitive offender under various
sections of NDPS Act, 1985 and his detention under PITNDPS Act, 1988 is
imperative to keep him out of business of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances and break the network of drugs supply in the district of
Hojai. Accordingly, the detaining authority named therein had recorded its
satisfaction that the petitioner has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the
provisions under NDPS Act, 1985 by continuously indulging in illicit trade in
narcotic drugs even after his arrest several times and therefore, in exercise of
power under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act, 1988, the said order was issued,
directing detention of the petitioner under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act, 1988) till further
order.
4) Along with the said detention order dated 17.10.2025, the
petitioner was also served with a copy of the Grounds of Detention, under
memo no. eCF-632573/77 dated 17.10.2025, amongst others, communicating to
the petitioner the sequence of events leading to arrest of the petitioner in
connection with their herein before referred (i) Hojai P.S. Case No. 20/2023

Page No.# 6/25
under section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985; (ii) Hojai P.S. Case No. 354/2023
under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985; and (iii) Lanka P.S. Case No.
351/2024 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the corresponding
charge-sheets, being (i) Hojai P.S. CS No. 229/2023 dated 07.07.2023, under
section 20(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985; (ii) Hojai P.S. CS No. 418/2023 dated
31.12.2023, under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985; and (iii) Lanka P.S.
CS No. 47/2025 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner
was informed that the petitioner was indulging in illegal business in narcotic
drugs, and is a mastermind in illegal drug business in Hojai and Lanka and other
parts of Hojai District and he was also luring youths into this illegal but lucrative
trade for easy money and is also turning youths of the society into drug addicts
and that despite his repetitive arrest, he had not mended his ways and without
remorse, was continuously indulging in criminal activities with help of his
accomplices. Moreover, the petitioner was informed that on being enlarged on
bail, he was repeating same offence again and that he was one of the main
conduits through whom drugs are supplied to to the district. Thus, his detention
was necessary to deter his accomplices from illegal trafficking of drugs to
protect the younger generation of the State from the menace of drugs in the
district of Hojai, thus, he is being detained under PITNDPS Act, 1988. The
petitioner was informed of his right to make representation before (i) State
Government (addressed to authority named therein), (ii) detaining authority
(named therein), (iii) Advisory Board (authority named therein), and (iv) Govt.
of India (addressed to authority named therein).
5) As per the said grounds of detention, the petitioner was
furnished with photocopies of (i) FIR, seizure list, FSL report, and charge-sheet
connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 20/2023 under section 20(c) of the NDPS

Page No.# 7/25
Act, 1985 (marked as Annexure-A1, A2, A3 and A4); (ii) FIR, seizure list, FSL
report, and charge-sheet connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 354/2023 under
section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (marked as Annexure-B1, B2, B3 and
B4); and (iii) FIR, seizure list, FSL report, and charge-sheet connection with
Lanka P.S. Case No. 351/2024 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act,
1985(marked as Annexure-C1, C2, C3 and C4).
6) The gist of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the detention order is vitiated for the following reasons:-
a. The photocopies of FIR, seizure list, FSL report, and charge-sheet
referred as annexures in the grounds of detention, was not served to
the petitioner.
b. For passing the detention order, the detaining authority had placed
reliance on three communications, viz., (i) the Inspector General of
Police (CR), Nagaon, Assam, vide letter no. CR/41-HJI/2025/95 dated
10.01.2025; (ii) the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, Assam, vide letter
under memo no. IV/HJI/Crime/2024/3373 dated 30.12.2024; and (iii)
the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai, Assam, vide letter
under memo no. IV/RS/HJI/2025/165 dated 15.05.2025. Accordingly, it
was submitted the detaining authority had failed to explain the delay
because the petitioner was detained on 12.05.2026, i.e. after about
one year from the last communication and about 7 (seven) months
from the date of passing of the detention order.
c. The petitioner was not explained the detention order in a language
which he could comprehend. It has been projected that the petitioner
was not conversant with English, in which the detention order and

Page No.# 8/25
other materials were served, which ought to have been explained to
him in Assamese.
d. It was submitted that the contents of the detention order was
factually incorrect because (i) his name is Noor Ali, which is wrongly
mentioned as Nur Ali, (ii) his father’s name is Surujali Bhuyan, but it was
wrongly written as Suruj Ali, (iii), wrong year of birth was mentioned; (iv)
wrong class upto which the petitioner had read was mentioned. Thus,
there was a confusion as to whom the said detention order was
addressed.
e. The Advisory Board had not taken an early decision on reference, if
any made by the State Government. It was submitted that the petitioner
is not aware of order, if any, passed by the Advisory Board, as the same
has not been communicated to the petitioner.
7) By referring to additional affidavit filed on 25.06.2026, the
petitioner had brought on record, representations submitted by the petitioner
before the respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7. By referring to the affidavit-in- reply
filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent
nos. 3, 4 and 5, it was submitted that the petitioner had not explained the delay
of 4 (four) days in forwarding his representation to the authorities. It was
submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 12.05.2026 and detained since
13.05.2026, but the first sitting of the Advisory Board in the matter of the
petitioner was on 08.06.2026. It was submitted that the petitioner had
submitted representation on 08.06.2026, but the same was received by the
authority on 22.06.2026 and the same was received by the PITNDPS Division on
29.06.2026, but the said authority had kept it in abeyance, awaiting
report/opinion of the State Advisory Board, Assam. Thereafter, the Deputy

Page No.# 9/25
Secretary to the Government of India had mechanically rejected the
representation of the petitioner.
8) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner had cited the following cases:-
a. Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura & Ors., (2022) 13 SCR 484.
b. Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 51.
c. Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 219.
d. Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 198.
e. Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telengana, (2024) 17 SCC 294.
f. Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (1974) 1 SCC 637.
g. Pebam Ningol Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur & Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 618.
h. Mrs. Nafisa Khalifa Ghanem v. Union of India & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 422.

9) Per contra, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State
had submitted that the petitioner was repetitively arrested for offence involving
commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances like
cannabis, methamphetamine and heroin, for which three police cases were
registered at Hojai and Lanka within Hojai District. It was submitted that the
petitioner is not only the kingpin of the illicit drug business in the said district,
but he is also involved in luring youths of the district into drug business by
making them drug peddlers and drug addicts. It was submitted that the
projection of the petitioner that he was not served with photocopies of FIR,
seizure lists, FSL reports and charge-sheets is false and contrary to the records.
It is further submitted that the stand of the petitioner that the detention order
and grounds of detention were not explained to the petitioner in Assamese is
also false because the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hojai, in his report vide
Memo No. IV/Reader-PITNDPS/HJI/2026/183 dated 12.06.2026, had reported
that the detention order and grounds of detention were served to the petitioner
and the grounds were read over and explained to the petitioner in Assamese, a

Page No.# 10/25
language known and understood by him, which was done in the presence of
independent witnesses and his wife.
10) It was further submitted that though the initial report by the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Hojai is dated 30.12.2024, but the
correspondence continued between the sponsoring authority and the detaining
authority for furnishing further information and clarification. Additional
information was furnished vide letter under Memo No. IV/ RSI/HJI/2025/165
dated 15.05.2025. Thus, after careful examination of the proposal, the
detention order was passed on 17.10.2025. Hence, it was submitted that the
delay, if any, cannot be said to be inordinate, unexplained or mechanical. It was
submitted that only after the detaining authority was satisfied that preventive
detention was necessary, the said order was passed to prevent the petitioner
from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
11) By referring to the copy of record produced, it was submitted
that after receipt of representation by the petitioner, the authority vide note
dated 10.07.2026, desired that an officer be called to explain the delay in
execution of the detention order. Thereafter, on 12.06.2026, a draft rejection
order was prepared and the same was put up before the Addl. Chief Secretary
on 10.07.2026, and it was signed by the said authority on the same day, i.e.
10.07.2026. Thereafter, on receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board on
13.07.2026, a decision was taken by the competent authority to confirm the
order of detention for a period of 1 (one) year as per Section 9(f) of the
PITNDPS Act. It has been submitted that in all the documents connected with
the three police station cases, the name of the accused is Nur Ali, son of Suruj
Ali, but only in his representation, someone in whose presence the petitioner
had given his LTI, had written the name as Noor Ali. It has been submitted that

Page No.# 11/25
the petitioner has not annexed any document like voter list or any other official
document to show that the name of father of the petitioner is not Suruj Ali but
Surujali Bhuyan. Accordingly, it was submitted that the detention order was not
liable to be interfered with.
12) In support of his submissions, the learned Addl. Advocate
General had cited the following cases:-
a. Siba Bhuyan @ Sujal Bhuyan @ Shiva Bhuyan v. The State of Assam & Ors.,
W.P.(Crl.) 61/2025.
b. Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr., (1979) 1 SCC 465.
c. Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India& Ors., (2020) 2 SCR 1047.

13) Considered the submissions and the cases cited at the Bar and
perused the scanned/photocopy of the record produced by the learned Addl.
Advocate General. Perused the writ petition; additional affidavit filed by the
petitioner; affidavit-in- opposition filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5; affidavit-
in-opposition filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2; affidavit-in- reply filed by the
petitioner against the affidavit-in- opposition filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and
5; affidavit-in- reply filed by the petitioner against the affidavit-in- opposition
filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2; rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent nos.
3, 4 and 5.
14) On the allegation that the name of the petitioner is Noor Ali, son
of Surujali Bhuyan and not Nur Ali, son of Suruj Ali:
a. In the Charge-sheet no. 229/2023 dated 07.07.2023, corresponding
to Hojai P.S. Case No. 20/2023 under section 20(c) of the NDPS Act,
1985, the name of the accused is Md. Noor Ali, aged 48 years, son of
Suraj Ali.
b. In the charge-sheet no. 418/2023 dated 31.12.2023, corresponding

Page No.# 12/25
to Hojai P.S. Case No. 354/2023 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, the name of accused no. 5 is Nur Ali, son of Suruj Ali
Bhuyan. However, as on the date of submission of the charge-sheet,
the accused no.5 was an absconder. Therefore, his age or date of birth
is not recorded in the charge-sheet.
c. In the charge-sheet no. 47/2025 dated 30.03.2025, corresponding to
Lanka P.S. Case No. 351/2024 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act,
1985, the name of the name of accused no.3 is Nur Ali, aged 49 years,
son of Late Suruj Ali.
d. The said issue regarding discrepancies in the spelling of the names
were also considered and rejected the same.
e. Thus, it appears that the petitioner interchangeably uses his name as
Md. Noor Ali, son of Suruj Ali, Nur Ali, son of Surujali Bhuyan and Nur
Ali son of Suruj Ali. Therefore, the contention that the detention order
contains incorrect names is found unacceptable and thus, the ground
projected by the petitioner is without any merit.
15) Allegation of non-service of photocopies of FIR, seizure list, FSL
report, and charge-sheet referred as annexures in the grounds of detention,
was not served to the petitioner:
a. It is well settled in the case of Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India, (2024)
9 SCC 53, that the Detaining Authority has to communicate the
grounds of detention to the detenue at the earliest and give the
detenue an earliest opportunity for making effective representation. It
was further held that the detenue must also be furnished with all the
documents relied upon for passing the detention order so that the right

Page No.# 13/25
to make representation becomes an effective right. It has also been
laid that the representation submitted by the detenue requires
expeditious disposal and all the intermediary authorities like jail staff,
etc. must also act with promptitude to transmit the representation and
for that purpose, they may rely on electronic communications, etc. It
was held that an unexplained delay in such communication on the part
of such intermediary authorities would also vitiate the detention order.
b. The records annexed to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 reveals that the 3 (three) attachments,
referred in the grounds of detention were sent to the Jailor, Special
Jail, Nagaon, for being served to the petitioner, namely, Nur Ali, son of
Late Suruj Ali. The said memo was prepared on 13.05.2026 and
received by the Jailor, Special Jail, Nagaon, on 13.05.2026. The copy of
detention order, grounds of detention and relied upon documents were
duly served to the petitioner on the same day in the presence of
Rumija Khatun, wife of Nur Ali, and two independent witnesses, whose
names are reflected in the document. Their names are not disclosed in
this order so that their identity is protected.
c. Therefore, the ground taken that documents annexed to the grounds
of detention, being (a) FIR, (ii) seizure list, (iii) FSL report, and (iv)
charge-sheet, in connection with three police station cases were not
served to the petitioner is found to be not correct.
16) Delay in passing the detention order after the proposal was send
on 10.01.2025:
a. The proposal for preventive detention of the petitioner was initiated

Page No.# 14/25
by the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, vide letter under Memo No.
IV/HJI/Crime/2024/3374 dated 30.12.2024, addressed to the Inspector
General of Police (CR), Nagaon. As per the rationale for issuing the
detention order, it was reported that the petitioner was in judicial
custody and that there is lurking possibility of his being released on
bail as it has happened in two previous cases and if it happens, it will
embolden him but will further act as a morale booster for other drug
suppliers/ peddlers and morale buster for police.
b. Based on the said Memo dated 30.12.2024, the proposal for
preventive detention was put-up made by the Inspector General of
Police (CR), Nagaon, vide letter no. CR/41-HJI/2025/95 dated
10.01.2025.
c. As sought for, the Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai,
provided additional information vide letter dated 15.05.2025 to the
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam for the proposal for issuing
detention order in respect of the petitioner. In the said letter it has
been mentioned that the petitioner was in judicial custody since
13.11.2024, in connection with Spl. NDPS Case No. 02/2024 of Hojai
P.S. Case No. 354/2023 under section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act. However,
against query as to whether the proposed detenue had applied for bail,
if so it has been allowed or rejected, the response is “NA”. Against
query if any bail objection is pending, the response is “NA”. Against the
query if any similarly circumstanced co-accused has got bail, the
response is again “NA”. As against the query whether there is a real
possibility of the proposed detenue being released on bail, the
response is “NA”. The abbreviation ‘NA” has not been elaborated or

Page No.# 15/25
explained as to what it is intended to mean.
d. Thereafter, the detention order was passed on 17.10.2025.
e. Though in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent nos. 3,
4 and 5, it has been stated that the detaining authority had asked for
further information and clarifications, but neither the impugned
detention order refers to any such exchange of information and/or
clarifications.
f. Thus, the said stand taken by the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5, as
urged by the learned Addl. Advocate General cannot be accepted for
two reasons. Firstly, the said stand, as taken in the affidavit-in-
opposition is not reflected in the impugned detention order. Secondly, if
there is any such additional information and clarification, the same
detention order does not reflect that the same was taken into
consideration while passing the detention order dated 17.10.2025.
g. Thus, as the proposal for preventive detention of the petitioner was
initiated by the Superintendent of Police, Hojai vide letter dated
30.12.2024, there has been an unexplained delay in passing the
detention order dated 17.10.2025. The delay in passing the detention
order from the date of proposal has the effect of snapping the live and
proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of
detention. Moreover, there is no attempt whatsoever, by the Detaining
Authority to explain the delay of about 290 (two hundred ninety days
in passing the detention order.
h. In the said context, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of
Sushanta Kumar Banik (supra), had analysed the point of delay in

Page No.# 16/25
passing the detention order by discussing several case laws on the
point. In the said case, the proposal for detention was made by the
Superintendent of Police (C/S), West Tripura on 28.06.2021. Based on
the said proposal, the Director General of Police, Tripura had forwarded
the proposal to the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Home
Department. Thereafter, the said Detaining Authority had passed the
1
detention order on 12.11.2021, i.e. after about 4 / months. In the
2
said factual situation, it was held that the delay in passing the
detention order had snapped the “live and proximate link” between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention and failure on the
part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner.
i. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, had sent
the proposal on 30.12.2024. Based on the same, the Inspector General
of Police (CR), Nagaon, forwarded the proposal vide letter dated
10.01.2025. The clarifications sought for was submitted by the
Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) vide letter dated
15.05.2025. Therefore, from the date of proposal, the delay in passing
1
the detention order is 290 days, i.e. about 10 / (ten and half) months.
2
From 10.01.2025, the date when the proposal was forwarded by the
Inspector General of Police (CR), the delay is about 6 (six) months.
From 15.05.2025, the date when clarification was sent, the delay is 2
(two) months. Thus, there is delay at every stage. The delay has not
been explained in the detention order.
j. Moreover, from the grounds of detention dated 17.10.2025 that was
furnished to the petitioner, the same does not reflect that the copy of

Page No.# 17/25
the letter by the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai vide
Memo No. IV/RSI/HJI/2025/165 dated 15.05.2025, was either
furnished to the petitioner or that its contents was referred to by the
Detaining Authority in the Detention Order dated 17.10.2025.
k. Thus, in this case the delay in passing the detention order had
snapped the “live and proximate link” between the prejudicial activities
of the petitioner and the purpose of detention and failure on the part
of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any manner.
17) Delay in serving the detention order dated 17.10.2025:
a. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was arrested on
12.05.2026 the detention order dated 17.10.2025, was served on him
and that he was under detention on and from 13.05.2026.
b. However, in the detention order dated 17.10.2025, it is specifically
mentioned in paragraph 3 thereto to the effect that in connection with
Hojai P.S. Case No. 20/2023, the petitioner was arrested and sent to
judicial custody. In paragraph 4 thereof, it has been mentioned to the
effect that in connection with Hojai P.S. Case No. 354/2023, the
petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Moreover, in
paragraph 5 thereof it has been mentioned to the effect that in
connection with Lanka P.S. Case No. 351/2024, the petitioner was
arrested and sent to judicial custody.
c. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was an
absconder. However, it is only from the contents of the charge-sheet
no. 418/2023 dated 31.12.2023, corresponding to Hojai P.S. Case No.
354/2023 under section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, it appears

Page No.# 18/25
that as on the date of submission of the charge-sheet, the accused
no.5 was an absconder. But if he was an absconder, then, there was no
reason for a statement being made in the detention order that the
petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody.
d. In the considered opinion of the Court, notwithstanding whether the
petitioner was an absconder or not, but the State respondents have
admitted that on 17.10.2025, the date the detention order was passed,
the petitioner was in judicial custody.
e. From the record of proceedings dated 17.06.2026 of the Advisory
Board under PITNDPS Act, it is recorded that the Addl. Superintendent
of Police, (HQ), had explained the delay in execution of Detention
order dated 17.10.2025, on 13.05.2026. However, except for a vague
observation, the reasons and/or explanation of delay is not mentioned
in the record of the proceedings dated 17.06.2026 of the Advisory
Board.
f. No cogent explanation has been given why the detention order could
not be served immediately after it was passed on 17.10.2025. Thus, by
waiting to serve the same till 13.05.2026, the respondent nos. 3, 4 and
5 have made an attempt to make the detention effective from
13.05.2026, the date when it was served on the petitioner.
g. Thus, the Court is inclined to hold that if as per the detention order
dated 17.10.2025, the petitioner was arrested and in judicial custody in
all three police cases, the delay in service of detention order dated
17.10.2025, to the petitioner is fatal, as it amounts to deliberate
attempt by the State to prejudicially affect the fundamental right of the

Page No.# 19/25
petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
h. Thus, the detention order dated 17.10.2025, is found to be vitiated by
lack of explanation as to why the detention order was served to the
petitioner on 13.05.2026, when as per the detention order, the
petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody in all the three
cases against him.
18) On the point that the detention order and the grounds of
detention were not explained to the petitioner in Assamese:
a. The respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have annexed a copy of the GD
Entry No. 014 dated 13.05.2026, recorded at 3:14:15 pm., amongst
others, that during the execution of the detention order, copies of the
following documents are duly served upon the detenue, being- (1)
detention order, (2) grounds of detention, and (3) relied upon
documents. It has further been recorded that the contents of the
documents were read over and explained to the detenue in Assamese
language, which he understands properly and it was also recorded that
necessary acknowledgement endorsement was obtained.
b. Thus, the plea of the petitioner that the detention order, grounds of
detention and relied upon documents were not explained in Assamese
language, is not acceptable, being incorrect and contrary to the
records.
19) Delay in forwarding the representation and delay on part of the
Advisory Board to render its opinion:
a. The petitioner had submitted his representation on 08.06.2026,
which was addressed to four authorities, viz., (1) Addl. Chief Secretary,

Page No.# 20/25
Political (A) Department; (2) Detaining Authority; (3) Advisory Board;
and (4) Deputy Secretary, PITNDPS Division, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Govt. of India.
b. The Assistant Jailor, Special Jail, Nagaon, had forwarded the said
representations on 08.06.2026.
c. Thus, there was no delay in forwarding the representations to the
concerned authorities.
d. The said representation was rejected by the detaining authority on
10.07.2026. In the meanwhile, the Advisory Board under PITNDPS Act,
1988, had submitted its report dated 05.07.2026 in respect of the
reference made under section 9(b) of the PITNDPS Act, 1985, wherein
it was held that there is sufficient cause for continuing with the
detention of the detenue, i.e. the petitioner pursuant to the detention
order dated 17.10.2025.
e. The Detaining Authority, vide order no. eCF-632573/147 dated
14.07.2026, had thereafter, confirmed the detention order no. eCF-
632573/80 dated 17.10.2025 for a period of 1 (one) year from the date
of detention.
20) The respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide their affidavit-in- opposition,
had stated that though the representation was submitted by the petitioner on
08.06.2026, the same was received by the Central Government on 22.06.2026
and the PITNDPS Division had received the same on 29.06.2026. The comments
was called for from the State Government, which was received through e-mail
dated 02.07.2026. Moreover, the State Government had informed that the said
case was referred to the Advisory Board 15.05.2026 and thus, awaiting the

Page No.# 21/25
report from the Advisory Board, the matter was kept in abeyance awaiting
receipt of report/ opinion from the Advisory Board, Assam, which was received.
Thereafter, on 22.07.2026, after reviewing all facts and records the
representation was disposed of by the Secretary, Department of Revenue on
behalf of the Central Government.
a. The respondent nos. 1 and 2, vide their affidavit-in- opposition, had
stated that though the representation was submitted by the petitioner
on 08.06.2026, the same was received by the Central Government on
22.06.2026 and the PITNDPS Division had received the same on
29.06.2026. The comments was called for from the State Government,
which was received through e-mail dated 02.07.2026. Moreover, the
State Government had informed that the said case was referred to the
Advisory Board 15.05.2026 and thus, awaiting the report from the
Advisory Board, the matter was kept in abeyance awaiting receipt of
report/ opinion from the Advisory Board, Assam, which was received.
Thereafter, on 22.07.2026, after reviewing all facts and records the
representation was disposed of by the Secretary, Department of
Revenue on behalf of the Central Government. On 23.07.2026, the
rejection memorandum was sent to the jail authorities.
b. Thus, there appears to be no delay in disposing of the representation
dated 08.06.2026. It may be mentioned that the State Advisory Board,
Assam was in seisin of the matter. In that regard, the Supreme Court
of India, in the case of Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra), had settled the law
that the Central Government can await the report/ opinion of the
Advisory Board.
c. However, it may be mentioned that when the Supreme Court of

Page No.# 22/25
India, in the case of Jaseela Shaji (supra), had observed that the jail
staff must act in promptitude to transmit the representation and for
the said purpose they may rely on electronic communications, etc.,
there is no explanation as to why the representations could not be
transmitted by way of e-mail.
d. Thus, in so far as delay that has occurred in receipt of the
representation by the Central Government, in light of the decision of
the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra),
which lays down that when the detaining authority is the State
Government, it would be proper for the Central Government to wait till
receipt of report/ opinion from the Advisory Board. Thus, in respect of
delay by the Central Government to take an appropriate decision, the
impugned detention order is not liable to be interfered with under the
facts of this case.
21) Non consideration of likelihood of the petitioner being released
on bail:
a. In this case, the Detaining Authority had not taken into consideration
the likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail as the provision
of 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 would apply under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
b. As mentioned hereinbefore, in the Grounds of Detention, the
petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody. The response to
the query of the Detaining Authority, the concerned Police Authorities
had not reported that the petitioner was released on bail in any of the
three cases. There is no material on record to show that the State had

Page No.# 23/25
raised any objection before the jurisdictional Court against prayer, if
any , made by the petitioner for grant of bail.
c. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Hojai, in his proposal dated 30.12.2024,
addressed to the Inspector General of Police (CR & HR), Diphu, Karbi
Anglong (through the Superintendent of Police, Hojai), vide letter
dated 30.12.2024, did not refer to the likelihood of the petitioner to be
released on bail.
d. The Superintendent of Police, Hojai, while forwarding the proposal to
the Inspector General of Police (CR), Nagaon, Camp- Diphu, did not
refer to likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail.
e. In the rationale for issuing detention order, which is annexed as
Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos.
3, 4 and 5, at bullet point at paragraph 5 thereof, it has been
mentioned that “… There was lurking possibility of being released on
bail as has happened in previous two NDPS Cases registered against
him.” However, the bail orders are not found to be accompanying the
proposal for detention. The fact that the petitioner was released on bail
in two cases is also not reflected in the letter dated 15.05.2025 by the
Addl. Superintendent of Police (Crime), Hojai. Rather, as mentioned
herein before, the Grounds of Detention discloses that the petitioner
was arrested in all three cases against him and he was sent to judicial
custody.
f. Therefore, the Detaining Authority was oblivious of the fact as to
whether or not there was any imminent possibility of the petitioner
being released on bail.

Page No.# 24/25
g. The detaining authority had failed to consider the rigours of section
37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which disentitles the petitioner to be
released on bail as a matter of course.
h. Therefore, the impugned detention order is not found sustainable on
facts and in law on this count.
22) Therefore, in light of the discussions above, the detention order
is found to be vitiated on two counts:-
a. Firstly, that the delay in issuing the detention order dated
17.10.2025, with reference to the proposal dated 30.12.2024, remains
unexplained in the detention order and therefore, held to be fatal
under the facts of this case.
b. Secondly, the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind on the fact
that the Sponsoring Authority had not stated that any bail application
by the petitioner in respect of the three cases were pending for
consideration by Court as on the date of sending the proposal. The
detaining authority had failed to consider the rigours of section 37 of
the NDPS Act, 1985, which disentitles the petitioner to be released on
bai as a matter of course.
23) Except for the decision in the case of Ankit Ashok Jalan (supra),
the cases cited by the learned Addl. Advocate General for the State are not
found to help the State in any manner.
24) In light of the discussions above, the writ petition deserves to be
and is accordingly, allowed. Consequently, (i) the Detention Order bearing No.
eCF-632573/80 dated 17.10.2025, issued by the Secretary to the Government of
Assam, Home and Political Department/ Political (A) Department; and (ii) the

Page No.# 25/25
Grounds of Detention bearing no. eCF-632573/77 dated 17.10.2025, issued by
the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department/
Political (A) Department, are both set aside and quashed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released forthwith from preventive detention.
25) The petitioner would have a right to apply for bail in connection
with the three NDPS cases referred hereinbefore, which shall be considered in
its own merit without being influenced by this judgment and order.

JUDGE JUDGE
Munna Kumar
Digitally signed by Munna Kumar
Date: 2026.11.05 11:45:30 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant Private Secretary