Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010080752025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1197/2025 BIKI ALI S/O- LATE GOLJAR ALI, PO- MAHAJANPARA, PS BAIHATA CHARIALI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781366 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : K RAHMAN, MR J RAHMAN,M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Biki Ali, who has been detained behind bars since 08.11.2024 (for the last 177 days) in connection with Garchuk P.S. Case No. 354/2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation is that on 08.11.2024 one Pranab Jyoti Bhattacharya, Sub-Inspector of Police lodged an FIR before the Officer-in- Charge of Garchuk Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable source that some unknown persons are transporting some suspected Drugs in a vehicle for smuggling the same at Garchuk-Lakhra Road, a search team was constituted and a naka checking was organized at Garchuk-Lakhra Road. During naka checking the petitioner and another accused person was apprehended with 41.1 Kgs. of Ganja (Cannabis). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has approached this Court seeking bail mainly on the ground of violation of his constitutional and statutory rights of not being furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest. He submitted that though notice under Section 47 BNSS was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, the said notice does not contain any grounds of arrest. Page No.# 3/5 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that similarly notice under Section 48 BNSS was furnished to his wife. However, in the said notice also no grounds of arrest were mentioned. Apart from stating the police station case number as well as the relevant penal provisions nothing else was mentioned in the said notice. He, therefore, submitted that there has been violation of the constitutional mandate of providing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his arrest and on that ground he is entitled for his bail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the ruling of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of” Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Another” reported in “2025 SCC Online SC 269”. 7. On the other hand, Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned APP, Assam has produced the case diary of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 354/2024 and has fairly submitted that notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, which was served on the petitioner and his wife does not contain any grounds of arrest. It only contains the police case number and the penal provisions involved in the case. 8. Considering the submissions made by the parties and after perusing the case diary of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 354/2024, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as the notice issued to the wife of the petitioner under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 does not contain the basic facts which necessitates the arrest of the petitioner in connection with this case. It does not comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Sections 47/49 of BNSS. 2023 as well as Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 9. In the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows” “When an arrested person is produced before Page No.# 4/5 a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that due to non-compliance, 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. In view of the above, as in the instant case there is a violation of the constitutional mandate in not furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, he is entitled to get bail on that ground only. 11. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup (Metro) with the following conditions that” i. The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 354/2024; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of Garchuk P.S. Case No. 354/2024 as and when so required for the sake of fair completion of the investigation; iii. 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 Investigating Officer; iv. The petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card as well as Mobile Number and other contact details to the Investigating Page No.# 5/5 Officer; v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup (Metro) without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and vi. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. 13. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant