Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010073712025 2025:GAU-AS:4644 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1131/2025 JAMANUR RAHMN @ RAHMAN MAZUMDAR AND ANR S/O- MONTASIR ALI MAZUMDAR R/O GANGANAGAR PART-IV, P.S. KACHUDHARAM DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM PIN-788119 2: MOKSUD AHMED LASKAR S/O NAZRUL ISLAM LASKAR R/O NUTON RAMNAGAR PART-IV P.S. SONAI DIST. CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. J GHOSH,MS A DAS,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 11-04-2025 Page No.# 2/7 Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 35/2025 corresponding with G.R. Case No. 62/2025 under Sections 21(b)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioners were arrested in connection with the case on 11.01.2025 and since then they are in custody. However, the case has already been charge-sheeted within the statutory period of 60 days but considering the length of detention, the present petitioners may be released on bail. The rigor of Section 37 is also not attracted as the present case is not of commercial quantity. Further Mr. Biswas submitted that the petitioners will appear before the learned Trial Court below as and when date will be fixed by the Court. Further Mr. Biswas raised the issue that though 47-48 notices along with Arrest Memo was issued to the present petitioners but there was no ground of arrest, which is a mandatorily required and non-compliance of and non-compliance of the same is in violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 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. Page No.# 3/7 4. In support of his submissions, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has 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. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after considering the materials available in the Case Diary submitted in this regard that during the investigation, the I.O. collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioners. The charge-sheet has already been filed finding prima facie materials against the present petitioners and the trial is about to commence and therefore, he submitted that this is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the accused/petitioners only considering the length of detention of the present accused/petitioners. He also submitted that there may not be any written communication for grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and he raised objection in granting bail to the accused/ petitioners. 6. 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, Injury Report and the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioners under Section 47 of BNSS. It is accordingly seen that while issuing the same, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioners along with the case number as well as the Sections under which he was arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in the in the Notice as well as the Arrest Page No.# 4/7 Memo. 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 person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest under which he was taken into custody of police. The accused/petitioner has 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. 7. 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 No. 19 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 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 Page No.# 5/7 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.” 8. 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 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.” 9. 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 in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioners under Section 47 BNSS 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 of Cr. P.C., it is seen that there is clear Page No.# 6/7 violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. 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. 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.” 11. 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 (NDPS), Cachar, Silchar the accused/petitioners, namely, [1] Jamanur Rahman @ Rahman Mazumdar and [2] Moksud Ahmed Laskar, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Cachar, Silchar, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the 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 or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before Page No.# 7/7 learned Special Judge (NDPS), Cachar, Silchar; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Cachar, Silchar, without prior permission. 12. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant