Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010075832025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1110/2025 SIYAB UDDIN S/O MAJAID ALI R/O VILL-AMAITILA PS. BADARPUR DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K TALUKDAR, K A SODIAL,MR. J M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. J. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Siyab Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since 15.05.2024 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 51/2024 Page No.# 2/5 corresponding to Badarpur P.S. Case No. 134/2024 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 15.05.2024, one J. Borah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Badarpur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received from the Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Karimganj to the effect that a goods carrier truck bearing Registration No. AS-01-JC-6796 coming from Mizoram side is carrying huge quantity of illegal contraband and accordingly a search team was constituted and a naka checking was organized. During checking, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted and the said vehicle was driven by Siyab Uddin (present petitioner). On search of the said vehicle, total 1220 grams of suspected heroin was recovered from the said vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was arrested on 15.05.2024, however, till date the trial has not commenced. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main ground on which the petitioner is seeking bail in instant case is the violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory rights under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He also submits that the no grounds of arrest were informed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest while he was served with notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He submits that in the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, apart from the police station case number as well as Page No.# 3/5 penal provisions involved in this case, no other information was furnished. No basic facts which necessitated his arrest were informed to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. He also submits that the notice under Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also not furnished to the relatives of the present petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there has been a violation of constitutional mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest which vitiates the arrest of the present petitioner and, therefore, on that ground, the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was found in possessions of the contraband as he was the driver of the vehicle of which the contraband was seized. He also submits that the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case as the quantity of contraband is of commercial quantity. However, he fairly submits that the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was served on the present petitioner does not disclose any grounds of arrest apart from disclosing of police station case number and the penal provision. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned copy of the Special NDPS Case No. 51/2024. 9. The Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana and Anr.”, reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 269” has observed as follows:- “20. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain Page No.# 4/5 whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that due to noncompliance, the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore, the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights.” 10. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that on failure to comply with the requirements of informing the grounds of arrest as soon as it may be after the arrest, the arrest itself gets vitiated and when once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 11. In the instant case, as discussed hereinbefore, no grounds of arrest have been stated in the notice furnished to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, there is no evidence to show that the notice under Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was furnished to the family members of the present petitioner. 12. Thus, there has been a total non-compliance of the constitutional provisions contained in Section 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as other statutory provisions indicated hereinabove, and on that ground, the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 13. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the above petitioner is entitled to be released on bail and accordingly, he is allowed to go on bail of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a resident of the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special NDPS Case No. 51/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi; Page No.# 5/5 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 petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, 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; vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; 14. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant