Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010069012025 2025:GAU-AS:4389 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1011/2025 KULDEEP YADAV AND 2 ORS. SON OF AUSAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF BHAOO PURA, SAMTHAR, P.S- USRAHAR, DISTRICT- ETAWAH, UP -206242, UTTAR PRADESH. 2: GAMBHEER SINGH S/O JOR SINGH R/O DUDHHA BARALOKPUR P.S.- CHAUBIYA DIST- ETAWAH UP-206123 UTTAR PRADESH 3: SANTOSH KUMAR S/O VEER SINGH DUDHHA PUNJA P.S.- CHAUBIYA DIST- ETAWAH UP-206123 UTTAR PRADES VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T N SRINIVASAN, MR B SINHA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE Page No.# 2/9 HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08-04-2025 Heard Mr. T.N. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 30.05.2024 in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 99/2024 u/s 22(c)/25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and now pending before the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj, Assam vide Spl. (NDPS) Case No. 59/2024. 3. The petitioner has filed an additional-affidavit to bring some documents on record. 4. Mr. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they are not connected in the alleged offence. Nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present accused/petitioners. All the petitioners are languishing in jail hajot since 30.05.2024 and the case has already been charge-sheeted on 26.10.2024. But, till date the prosecution could not examine any witnesses. As many as 10 nos. of witnesses are being cited as prosecution witnesses and hence there is no likelihood of completion of trial within a reasonable period. So, considering the period of detention of the present accused/petitioners they may be released on bail. 5. Mr. Srinivasan further submitted that the grounds of arrest were not Page No.# 3/9 mentioned while issuing notice u/s 50 Cr.PC as well as the Arrest Memo of the petitioners which is mandatorily required and in absence of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 21/22(1) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the accused/petitioners were arrested on 30.05.2024 and since then they are behind the bars, but due to non-mentioning of grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice under Section 50 Cr.PC, the arrest itself is illegal. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to them at the time of their arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 6. In this context, Mr. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, also cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 7. He further submitted that though in the case of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act follows, but in cases where there is violation of the constitutional provision as mandated under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India, the statutory restriction will not affect the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. More so, non-mentioning of grounds of arrest while issuing the Arrest Memo or Notice under Section 50 Cr.PC is itself in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and hence, without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present petitioners are entitled to bail. Page No.# 4/9 8. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that it is not a case that on the basis of the statement of the co-accused the petitioners were arrested but from the case records it is evident that the present petitioner was very much involved in the alleged offence. 9. Mr. Sharma further submitted that since the case falls under the category of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition has to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. But, from the available materials, it cannot be said that the present petitioners are innocent, they have not committed such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if they are released on bail. Thus, he raised vehement objection and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioners on bail at this stage. 10. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition, more particularly, the Arrest Memo and the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C. It is accordingly seen that while issuing the said Arrest Memo and the Notice, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioners along with the case number as well as the Sections under which they were arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in the in the Notice. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused/petitioners or to their family members at the time of their arrest which is a statutory right of an accused and it is also a constitutional mandate that the Page No.# 5/9 person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest under which they were taken into custody of police. 11. It is the contention of the petitioner that non-communication of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Sections 50 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 47 BNSS rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioners invalid. The accused/ petitioners have the fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and copy of such written ground of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without any explanation. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested accused/petitioners would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge- sheeted. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held in paragraph Nos. 19, 21 & 48 of the judgment as under: “19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality 3 (2000) 8 SCC 590committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police Page No.# 6/9 custody remand to the accused. 48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making 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 the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 13. Further, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has under: “14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of Page No.# 7/9 informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.” 14. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no mention of grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C and except the name, address and the case numbers, there is no mention about any other particulars of the offence as well as the grounds of arrest. So, from the proviso of Section 50 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 47 of BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in such cases, in spite of the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the violation of the constitution mandate contained under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the arrest of the petitioners is vitiated and it may be a sufficient ground to consider his bail application in spite of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which provides the restriction in granting bail in the cases of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. 15. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) has also held that even after filing of the charge-sheet, the arrest and the detention will be considered as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment has held as under: “16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Page No.# 8/9 Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.” 16. In view of the entire discussions made above, it is the opinion of this Court that the period of incarceration undergone by the accused/petitioners may not be a good ground for considering their bail application at this stage. Charge- sheet has already been filed but the charge could not be framed and the case is at the stage of appearance of witnesses. However, considering the fact that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners or mentioned in the Arrest Memo and the Notice issued to the present accused/ petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 47 BNSS this Court find it a fit case to extent the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 17. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only each with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Assam, the accused/ petitioners, namely, [1] Kuldeep Yadav [2] Gambheer Singh and [3] Santosh Kumar be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Assam, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make Page No.# 9/9 any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Assam; and (iv) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, Assam, without prior permission. 18. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant