Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010083442025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1224/2025 IMRAN UDDIN S/O LATE RIAZ UDDIN R/O BHARTAL VILLAGE, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BORA, MR P S RAJA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. B. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this second bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/5 Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Imran Uddin, has prayed for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 120/2023 (arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 243/2023) under Section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi cum Special Court under NDPS Act, Sribhumi, Assam. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 10.09.2023 at about 00.20 a.m., an information was received from reliable source by the O/C, Badarpur P.S. that huge quantity of illegal psychotropic substance is kept hidden in the house of one Suhel Ahmed of Hajipur village under Badarpur P.S. Accordingly, the police personnel raided the said house and Suhel Ahmed was found and during search, 2100 numbers of bottles of Phensedyl Cough Syrup of 100 ml each were recovered from his house and seized the same. During interrogation, Suhel Ahmed disclosed the name of the petitioner that the petitioner was also involved with trafficking of such contrabands. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one and half year since his arrest on 10.09.2023. It is also submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid on 31.12.2023. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, notice was served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. wherein grounds of arrest has not been shown which is clear violation of the provisions of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case law – a) Mafujul Islam @ Mafuzul Islam vs. The State of Assam, Page No.# 3/5 in BA No. 3519/2024. 6. Per contra, Mr. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 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 petitioner. 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 petitioner. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the trial court record, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo does not show any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioner. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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 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. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for 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 served to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with Badarpur P.S. Case No. 243/2023. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 120/2023 (arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 243/2023) under Section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi cum Special Court under NDPS Act, Sribhumi, Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi cum Special Court under NDPS Act, Sribhumi, Assam, without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial; 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. 13. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant