Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010073752025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1182/2025 TAPAN MAHANTA S/O LT. NILKANTA MAHANTA, R/O VILL- SUTARKUCHI, P.S.- MUKALMUA, DIST- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN-781126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR K KASHYAB,MR. K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. I. H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner namely, Sri Tapan Page No.# 2/6 Mahanta who has been detained behind the bars since 12.11.2023 ( for more than 18 months) in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 13/2024 corresponding to Mukalmuwa P.S. Case No. 561/2023 under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the second time the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail for the above- noted case. On the earlier occasion, his bail application was rejected on 13.03.2025 in Bail Application No. 443/2025. 4. However, this time the petitioner has approached this Court with some additional grounds, which were not taken by him on the last occasion. 5. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 11.11.2023 one Shri Tarani Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mukalmua Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that a reliable information was received by the In-Charge of Adabari Police Post from secret sources on 11.11.2023 to the effect that large number of narcotic and psychotropic drugs have been kept in the house of one Tapan Mahanta. The informer also revealed that Tapan Mohanta, Saddam Hussain and Dipu Mohanta are involved in trafficking of narcotic drugs. 6. Accordingly, a general diary entry was made by the Officer-In-Charge of Mukalmua Police Station namely by GD Entry No. 11.11.2023 and a police team was constituted to conduct the search. 7. Accordingly, the police team took the accused Tapan Mahanta and Saddam Hussain present petitioner from the stationary shop of Tapan Mahanta and proceeded to the house of Tapan Mahanta and during search of the house premises of accused Tapan Mahanta, 38,880 numbers of Spas Trancan Plus Capsules were found there. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though, the Page No.# 3/6 petitioner has been detailed behind the bars for last more than 18 months, however, till date, only 4 out of 15 witnesses, which are listed in the charge- sheet have been examined. 9. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 10. On the other hand, he further submits that though, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the time of his arrest, however, it did not contain the ground of arrest, and therefore, there is a violation of the constitutional mandate as provided under, as prescribed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the scanned copy of the case record is not legible, therefore, he is not in a position to verify as to whether only 4 witnesses have been examined or more number of witnesses have been examined. 13. He further submits that the scanned copy is also updated only till 27.02.2025, and there may be a possibility of examination of further witnesses after the same date. However, he submits that though, the scanned copy of the records is not legible, it appears from the record that the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contain any ground of arrest. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of Special NDPS Case No. 13/2024, which was requisitioned in connection with this case. Page No.# 4/6 Though, it could not be ascertained properly as to whether only 4 witnesses have been examined or more number of witnesses have been examined, however, it appears that the trial is still pending and the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for more than last 1 year, 6 months. 15. Therefore, this is a case of prolonged incarceration of the petitioner, which is also a ground, which may entitle the petitioner to get bail. 16. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the records show that though, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the aforesaid case, at the time of his arrest, however, the said notice does not contain any ground of arrest. Neither, it provides for the basic facts, which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 17. Thus, this is a case where there is violation of the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory mandate provided under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of furnishing the ground of arrest to an arrestee (petitioner) at the time of his arrest. 18. In the case of “Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” (Supra), the Apex Court has observed that any violation of the constitutional mandate of punishing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his arrest in writing would be a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and once such a violation is established, the arrest of such an arrestee itself becomes illegal and on that ground, such an arrestee is entitled to get bail. 19. The case of the petitioner squarely covers under the aforesaid observation, as he was also not furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest. 20. For reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraph, the petitioner is Page No.# 5/6 allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special NDPS Case No. 13/2024, which is pending before the Trial Court ; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioners; iv. That the petitioner shall provide their contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card as well as Mobile Number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 21. With the above observation, this bail application is, accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant