Gauhati HC frees drug detenu: 290 days to issue the order, nearly seven months more to serve it
A division bench quashed a PITNDPS detention against a Hojai man facing three NDPS cases, holding that the unexplained gap after the police proposal broke the live link to his alleged activity and that the authority never weighed whether he would get bail.
The Hojai police proposed preventive detention for Noor Ali on 30 December 2024. The detention order was signed on 17 October 2025, 290 days later. It was served on 13 May 2026, nearly seven months after that, although the order itself recorded that he had been arrested and sent to judicial custody in all three drug cases against him.
On 5 November 2026 the Gauhati High Court set the order aside and directed his release from preventive detention. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana wrote the judgment for a division bench that also included Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund.
Three NDPS cases and a detention order
The order was passed under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988, by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Political (A) Department. It relied on police reports from the Inspector General of Police (CR), Nagaon, and the Superintendent of Police, Hojai.
The three cases were Hojai Police Station Case Nos. 20/2023 and 354/2023, and Lanka Police Station Case No. 351/2024. The first was under Section 20(c) of the NDPS Act and the other two under Sections 21(c) and 29. The seized material had tested positive for ganja, methamphetamine and heroin.
The grounds of detention called him a repeat offender and a mastermind of the drug trade in Hojai who lured young people into it. They said he had repeated the offence after being released on bail. The State later confirmed the detention for one year.
What the detenu argued
Mr P.R. Sarma, for Noor Ali, said the FIRs, seizure lists, FSL reports and charge-sheets were never served on him. He said the order was not explained to him in Assamese, and that it got his name, his father’s name, his year of birth and his schooling wrong.
He also argued that the authority had not explained why a detention order resting on communications up to 15 May 2025 was passed in October and executed only in May 2026. The Advisory Board, he said, had not acted early, and his representation was rejected mechanically.
Mr B. Goswami, the Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr I. Borthakur, Government Advocate, defended the order. He called Noor Ali the kingpin of the district’s drug trade and said correspondence between the sponsoring and detaining authorities explained the interval.
Five objections that failed
The court rejected the name objection first. The three charge-sheets give his name as Md. Noor Ali, son of Suraj Ali, and as Nur Ali, son of Suruj Ali Bhuyan and of Late Suruj Ali. The bench concluded that he used the variants interchangeably.
On service of documents, the court cited Jaseela Shaji v. Union of India. That ruling requires that the detenu get every document relied on, so that the right to represent becomes effective.
The record showed the FIRs, seizure lists, FSL reports and charge-sheets for all three cases were sent to the Nagaon Special Jail on 13 May 2026. They were served that day in the presence of his wife and two independent witnesses, whose names the court withheld to protect them.
The language plea also failed. A general diary entry timed at 3:14 pm on 13 May 2026 recorded that the documents were read over and explained to him in Assamese, which he understood. The court called the plea contrary to the record.
A representation that kept moving
Noor Ali submitted his representation on 8 June 2026, addressed to four authorities. The Assistant Jailor forwarded it the same day, so the court found no delay in forwarding. The Advisory Board reported on 5 July 2026 that there was sufficient cause for continued detention.
The detaining authority rejected the representation on 10 July 2026 and confirmed the detention on 14 July 2026. The Central Government received the representation on 22 June, kept it pending the Advisory Board’s opinion, and rejected it on 22 July 2026.
The court held that wait was permissible. Relying on Ankit Ashok Jalan v. Union of India, it said the Centre can await the Board’s opinion when the detaining authority is the State Government. It did, however, ask why the jail could not have sent the representation by e-mail to avoid the delay in reaching Delhi.
Two hundred and ninety days with no explanation
The delay was where the State lost. The Superintendent of Police, Hojai, sent the proposal on 30 December 2024. The Inspector General forwarded it on 10 January 2025, and the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime) supplied further information on 15 May 2025.
The police proposal had given a reason for urgency. It said Noor Ali was in judicial custody, that he might be released on bail as in two earlier cases, and that his release would embolden him and hearten other drug suppliers.
The 15 May 2025 letter put his judicial custody at 13 November 2024, in Special NDPS Case No. 02/2024, arising from Hojai Police Station Case No. 354/2023. It was the last piece of material the authorities sent before the order.
The detention order came on 17 October 2025. The court counted about six months from the Inspector General’s letter and two months from the clarification. It found delay at every stage, and none of it explained in the order.
The State said the authorities had exchanged further information in between. The bench did not accept that. The detention order mentioned no such exchange, and nothing showed that any extra material was weighed when the order was passed.
The court also noted that the 15 May 2025 letter was not mentioned in the grounds of detention given to Noor Ali. It placed the case beside Sushanta Kumar Banik v. State of Tripura, where a delay of about four and a half months had been held fatal.
The delay here, it held, had snapped the “live and proximate link” between the alleged activity and the purpose of detention (para 16).
Nearly seven months before it was served
Noor Ali said he was arrested on 12 May 2026 and detained from 13 May. The order, though, recited that he had been arrested and sent to judicial custody in each of the three cases. The State accepted that he was in judicial custody on 17 October 2025.
The bench pointed out that the only hint of an absconder was in one charge-sheet, which listed an accused as absconding on the date it was filed. That could not square with the detention order’s own account of his arrests.
The Advisory Board’s record of 17 June 2026 said an Additional Superintendent of Police had explained the delay in executing the order. It did not set out the explanation beyond what the court called a vague observation.
The bench found no cogent reason why the order could not have been served right after it was passed. It said the State had in effect tried to make the detention effective from 13 May 2026, and held that the delay in service was fatal. It described the conduct as a
“deliberate attempt by the State to prejudicially affect the fundamental right” (para 17)
to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bail was never weighed
The second ground concerned bail. The State’s rationale note said there was a lurking possibility of release on bail, as had happened in two earlier cases. The court found no bail orders attached to the proposal.
The 15 May 2025 letter did not mention any release either. Asked whether Noor Ali had applied for bail, whether any bail objection was pending, whether co-accused had got bail and whether release was likely, the police had answered “NA” to each. The letter did not say what that meant.
The grounds of detention said he had been arrested and sent to judicial custody in all three cases. The court held that the detaining authority therefore did not know whether any real prospect of release existed. It had not applied its mind to the fact that no bail application was reported pending.
It also said the authority failed to consider Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which bars release on bail as a matter of course in cases like these. The bench held the order unsustainable on that count too. The State’s other authorities, apart from Ankit Ashok Jalan, did not help it.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. Detention Order No. eCF-632573/80 and the Grounds of Detention No. eCF-632573/77, both dated 17 October 2025, were quashed. Noor Ali was ordered released forthwith from preventive detention.
The court added that he may apply for bail in the three NDPS cases, and that those applications are to be decided on their own merits without being influenced by the judgment. The bench had reserved judgment on 29 September 2026.