Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010069002025 2025:GAU-AS:5196 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1010/2025 SONU SON OF BRAJ NANDAN, RESIDENT OF SALEMPUR TARA BANGAR, RITUKALA, MAKRAND NAGAR, DISTRICT AND P.S- KANNAUJ, UP-209726, UTTAR PRADESH. 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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 29.04.2025 Heard Mr. T. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/7 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail to the petitioner i.e. Sonu, who has been arrested on 02.06.2024 in connection with Bazaricherra P.S. case No.100/2024 registered under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and presently pending before the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Karimganj, Assam in Spl. (NDPS) Case No.61/2024. 3. The brief facts of the case is that one 01/06/2024 while conducting a regular Naka Checking point in front of Churaibari WP, one brown and yellow colour 10 wheeler container truck bearing Registration No. HR-37E-7205 was coming from Guwahati towards Tripura and after reaching the checkpoint, the truck was stopped by the Naka Party and during checking it was found that total 22 Numbers of Cartons containing with Codeine and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup, ESKUF which were concealed with different kinds of boxes and wrapped with floor mats and accordingly the said Codeine Syrup was seized with total 3300 bottles (389.4 Kgs) as per procedure along with the said truck. Accordingly, a case was registered as Bazaricherra P.S. Case No.100/2024 under section 22(c)/25/29 NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. Hence, the instant bail application has been filed. 4. Mr. T. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arresting authority while arresting the petitioner has not informed the grounds of arrest to him and as such, the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Page No.# 3/7 Constitution of India has been totally infringed by the arresting authority. He accordingly submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. 5. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam fairly draws the attention of the Court from the case records that the Notice issued under Section 50 of Cr.P.C to the petitioner as well as the Memo of Arrest does not indicate that the grounds of such arrest has been informed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties and also perused the material available on record. 7. The primary ground urged in this bail application is as regard non-compliance of the constitutional and fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Apt to refer to Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as hereunder:- “21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.—(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” Page No.# 4/7 8. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that an arrestee has a constitutional and fundamental right under the Constitution of India to be informed about the grounds of his arrest at the time of his arrest. 9. In the present case apt to refer to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as hereunder: - “NOTICE U/S- 50 C.R.P.C. Ref:- BCR P.S. Case No. 100/24 u.s 22(C)/25/29 NDPS Act. To, Sonu, 25 yrs S/o- Braj Nandan Add- Salempur Tara Bangar, Ritukala, Markand Nagarr, PS- Kannauj Dist- Kannauj (Uttar Pradesh) Your are hereby notified that, you have been arrested in connection with above reference case and have been found involved in the case and accordingly forwarded to the Hon’ble Court for Judicial Custoy on 02/06/2024. Copy received by the arrestee Signature of the Arresting Officer” 10. Perusal of the aforesaid notice indicates that except the name of the petitioner and case reference, no other information as regards the offence or the grounds of arrest is intimated to the petitioner in this notice. 11. Apt also to refer to the memo of arrest which reads as Page No.# 5/7 hereunder: - “ARREST MEMO Case Reference- BCR P.S. Case No. 100/24 u.s 22(C)/25/29 NDPS Act 1. Name and particulars of person arrested:- Sonu, 25 yrs S/o- Braj Nandan Add- Salempur Tara Bangar, Ritukala, Markand Nagarr, PS- Kannauj Dist- Kannauj (Uttar Pradesh) 2. Date and Time Arrest : On 02.06.2024 at 10.00 AM 3. Place of arrest:- Bazaricherra P.S. 4. Injuries present at time of Arrest: As per Inspection Memo (If yes make Inspection Memo on reverse) 5. Signature and name of Relative/Witness Of Arrest (at least one):- 6. Signature of Arrested persons : 7. Signature & Full name of Arresting Office (Also and any “toka” if reqd.)” 12. Perusal of the memo of arrest also indicates that except the name and particulars of the petitioner, date and time of arrest and case reference, no other information as regards the offence or grounds of arrest is mentioned. 13. It appears from the materials placed before this Court that there are no materials available in the case record to indicate that the grounds of arrest have been informed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. Moreover, the case record does not indicate any contemporaneous record indicating that the grounds of arrest were informed to the accused. Page No.# 6/7 14. There is no doubt that the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Non-compliance of Article 22(1) will be a violation of the constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed by the said Article. That apart, it will amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When a violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India is established, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail. In fact, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused when a violation of Article 22(1) is established (Refer:- Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr., reported in 2025 SCConline SC 269). In the present case it is absolutely clear that the grounds of arrest was not informed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, hence, the arrest of the petitioner is totally illegal. As such, the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated. That being so, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 does not affect the power of this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner in the custody is totally unjustified. 15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner named above is liable to be released forthwith. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-( rupees fifty thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a Government Servant, and one has to be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj) under the conditions that the petitioner: Page No.# 7/7 (a) That the accused/petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned trial Court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the case is disposed of; (b) That the accused/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; and (c) That the accused/petitioner shall refrain from committing any offences similar to the one of which he is accused; 16. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant