Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010074742025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1101/2025 NUR MAHAMMAD ALI @ BABUL ALI AND 3 ORS. S/O GOFUR ALI, VILLAGE UKHURA PANIKHAITI RESERVE, P.S HAJO, DISTRICT KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: JILIMA BEGUM W/O NUR MAHAMMAD ALI @ BABUL ALI VILLAGE UKHURA PANIKHAITI RESERVE P.S HAJO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 3: SAJINA BEGUM W/O JAKIR ALI VILLAGE UKHURA PANIKHAITI RESERVE P.S HAJO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM 4: JAKIR ALI S/O ISLAM ALI VILLAGE UKHURA PANIKHAITI RESERVE P.S HAJO DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, U U KHAN,MR A AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/7 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 14.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By filing this application U/S 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (1) Nur Mahammad Ali @ Babul Ali (2) Jilima Begum (3) Sajina Begum (4) Jakir Ali, have sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 94/2024 (arising out of Hajo P.S. Case No. 181/2024) under Section 20(C)/29/31 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, Assam. 3. The factual matrix leading to this bail application is that on 29.05.2024, on the basis of a secret information, the police personnel of Hajo police station, went to the house of Babul Ali @ Saru and Jakir Ali. Thereafter, following the due procedure, searched the house of accused Babul Ali and found 4(four) nos. of white colour polythene bags kept concealed inside a bathroom and recovered suspected ganja weighing about 20.150 kgs. Then, the police personnel proceeded towards the residence of Jakir Ali and after following due procedure, search was conducted and found 4(four) nos. of white colour polythene bags kept concealed inside the kitchen and recovered suspected ganja weighing about 20.100 kgs. Accordingly, a case was registered and subsequently accused petitioners were arrested. Page No.# 3/7 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have been languishing in judicial custody since their arrest on 29.05.2024 and the petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 have been languishing in judicial custody since their arrest on 19.08.2024. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police vide C.S. No. 314/2024 dated 22.11.2024. It is further submitted that on 09.01.2025, charge has been framed against the accused/petitioners but no witness is examined till date. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they are no way involved in the instant case. The main thrust of argument for the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioners in the notice served on them U/S 50 Cr.P.C. (U/S 47 BNSS) which are mandatory in nature, thereby violating the mandates of Article 21/22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for bail. 6. Per contra, Mr. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. As the commercial quantity of contraband items are involved in the instant case as such, the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into play. Hence, the Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed in granting bail to the petitioners. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the petitioners. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the Page No.# 4/7 notice served to the petitioners u/s 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo show that no grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioners at the time of their arrest. 8. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, reported in (2023) SCC Online (SC) 1244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. If the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. Consequently, the arrest and the subsequent remand of the arrested person cannot be sustained. 9. In another case vide Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA (P) Act or for that matter any other offences. The accused has fundamental and 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 and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 10. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in Page No.# 5/7 such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 11. In the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of Pankaj Bansal, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and the Court held as follows – “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as per the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” Page No.# 6/7 12. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed about the grounds of his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice or the arrest memo served to the petitioners that the accused petitioners were informed about the grounds of their arrest in connection with Hajo P.S. Case No. 181/2024. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 94/2024 (arising out of Hajo P.S. Case No. 181/2024) under Section 20(C)/29/31 of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, Assam without prior written permission from him/her till disposal of the case; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (c) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court. Page No.# 7/7 14. The observation made by the Court is for the purpose of this bail application only, not on merits of the case. 15. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 16. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant