Abdul Kalam's plea dismissed as court finds prima facie evidence of involvement in contraband trafficking
The Gauhati High Court, under the aegis of Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, has rejected the bail application of Abdul Kalam, an accused in a significant narcotics case involving the trafficking of Methamphetamine tablets. The decision was rendered on February 24, 2026, amidst allegations of procedural violations during Kalam's arrest, which have been scrutinized under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The case, registered as NCB Guwahati Zonal Unit, Crime No. 09/2025, unfolded after the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) intercepted a Mahindra XUV carrying approximately 10.858 kg of Methamphetamine tablets concealed within its chassis. The operation, conducted at Nazirakhat Toll Plaza, resulted in the apprehension of three individuals and subsequently led to Kalam's arrest on the same day, July 14, 2025.
Advocates Mr. A.K. Talukdar, M. Rahoman, and Mr. Shahin Yusuf represented Kalam, challenging the legality of his arrest. They argued that Kalam's implication was based solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused individuals and a statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), which they claimed held weak evidentiary value following the precedent set in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1.
The defense highlighted alleged procedural lapses, contending that the arrest memo lacked the signature of a family member or an independent witness, violating Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS. They further argued that the mandatory notice under Section 48 was not served to Kalam's family at the time of arrest, although it was later acknowledged by his family in Manipur, which they claimed breached his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
However, the prosecution, represented by Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, Deputy Solicitor General of India, countered these arguments, asserting compliance with procedural requirements. The court reviewed the arrest memo and related documents, noting that Kalam's wife was informed telephonically about his arrest, and a written notice was subsequently served, thus meeting statutory obligations.
Justice Kalita emphasized that telephonic communication followed by written notice was sufficient given the circumstances, including the geographical challenges and prevailing unrest in Manipur at the time. Furthermore, the court found compelling prima facie evidence of Kalam's involvement, noting allegations of financial transactions and Kalam's disclosure of key information, such as the contact number of the alleged supplier.
In light of these findings, the court concluded that Kalam's bail application lacked merit, underscoring the gravity of the charges against him and the potential threat posed by such criminal activities. The rejection of the bail plea marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle against drug trafficking in the region.
The case continues to draw significant attention as authorities strive to combat the proliferation of narcotics across the Northeast, reinforcing the commitment to uphold procedural integrity while addressing complex legal challenges under the BNSS framework.
Bottom Line:
Bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) rejected due to prima facie findings of involvement in trafficking Methamphetamine tablets and compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 36 and 48 of BNSS.
Statutory provision(s): Section 483, Section 36, Section 48 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Section 8(c), Section 22(c), Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
Abdul Kalam v. Union of India, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2857842
