Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010082772025 2025:GAU-AS:5666 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1221/2025 MABRUR AHMED CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE SHAFIQUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY, R/O- VILL- SUPRAKANDI WARD NO.2, PS KARIMGANJ, DIST- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, K MAINUDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the opposite party/respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mabrur Ahmed Choudhury, who is detained behind the bars since 19.07.2024 Page No.# 2/5 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 81/2024 corresponding to Karimganj P.S. Case No. 462/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.07.2024, one M.N. Singha, SI of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Karimganj Police Station, inter alia, stating that the reliable information was received through a secret source regarding concealment of some drugs by the present petitioner in one Hero Glamour Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AS-10A-6892. On receipt of the said information, a Naka Checking was organized at Suprakandi Fakira Bazar, Karimganj and during Naka Checking, the petitioner was apprehended. During the said operation, 766 grams of Yaba Tablets were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that at the time of his arrest when Notice under Section 47 of BNSS was served on the petitioner, no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the said Notice. He has also submitted that in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Inspection Memo which were drawn up at the time of his arrest, no grounds of arrest were mentioned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that not informing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner as soon as he was arrested would vitiate his arrest as it would be against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He submits that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner has to be informed about all the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the accused. He also submits that it is the mandate of law that the full particulars of the offence which are alleged against the petitioner have to be informed to him at the time of his arrest, otherwise, it would be against the mandate of the Constitution as well as the statutory provisions and which would vitiate the arrest itself. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Page No.# 3/5 (i) Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even if the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 appears to be applicable in this case, however, when there is a violation of constitutional provision contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, the statutory restrictions would not affect the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mr. P.S.Lahkar, has submitted that though the case is involved with the commercial quantity of contraband articles and apparently, Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable, however, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that on perusal of the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS which was served on the petitioner, it appears that it contains only the Police Station Case number and the penal provision of the case but no grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the said Notice. 9. 9. It is no longer in dispute that the constitutional mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India requires furnishing the grounds of arrest to the arrested person as soon as possible after the arrest. Similarly, Notice was there under Section 47 of BNSS as well as under Section 52(i) of the NDPS Act, 1985 but in the instant case, it appears that not only statutory requirement but also constitutional mandate as prescribed under Article 22 of Constitution of India has been violated in the case. 10. Bare perusal of the Notices served upon the petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 & under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 as well as the Arrest Memo and the Inspection Memo on which his signatures were obtained would show that there is a clear violation of mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in this case and therefore, in spite of the embargo contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, this Page No.# 4/5 Court is of considered opinion that due to violation of the constitutional mandate contained under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated and that is sufficient to grant him bail in this case in spite of the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 11. In view of the above, the aforesaid petitioner, namely, Mabrur Ahmed Choudhury, is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of the like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi with the following conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 462/2024; (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Investigating Officer as and when so required by him 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 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi; (v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of learned of Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi without Page No.# 5/5 prior permission of the Court of learned of Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi and when such leave is granted by the Court of learned of Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Court of learned of Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi; and (vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 12. With the above observations and directions, this bail application is allowed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant