Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010084112025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1280/2025 RAHUL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE RAM BIHARI SINGH R/OVILL- ISWARPURA P.O.AND P.S. SAHPUR DIST. BHOJPUR, BIHAR PIN-802112 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RAHMAN, MR. K H SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 03.06.2025 Heard Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Begum, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/7 2. By filing this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Rahul Kumar Singh, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 57/2024 (corresponding to Guwahati GRPS Case No. 222/2023) under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati 3. The case of the petitioner is that on the date of the incident, the petitioner was traveling in Rajdhani Express with eight unknown individuals when four bags were found, containing a total of 59.138 kg of ganja. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the bags do not belong to the petitioner and he was sitting on the upper berth of the said coach and he has no knowledge regarding the said contraband. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 31.10.2023 and since then he has been detained in custody. Charge sheet has been laid on 17.01.2024 and charge was framed on 27.03.2024. However, no any witness has been examined till date. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 31.10.2023, the arresting authority did not mention the grounds of arrest in notice under section 50 Cr.P.C., which resulted the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and therefore, he should no longer be retained in custody and be released on bail for the interest of justice. In support of his submission, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following orders vide- (i) Md. Faruque Khan vs. The Union of India in BA No. 1621/2025. (ii) Bidyan Nath Singh vs The state of Assam in BA 356/2025. Page No.# 3/7 6. By referring the judgment of D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416, learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that the Police Officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectful person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. 7. According to learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the said guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed in the instant case. Hence, due to such irregularities made by the investigating agency during investigation, the accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 8. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the alleged contraband item was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As such, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying on para 15 of the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Other, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, has stated that Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in every case it may not be practicable to implement what is suggested i.e. information about grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. Hence, if the grounds of arrest is not communicated to the accused petitioner at the time of his arrest which cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in the case in hand, when the accused petitioner was produced before the learned CJM, Page No.# 4/7 Guwahati, the grounds of arrest was reflected in the accused forwarding, which transpires that the accused petitioner has knowledge regarding his arrest in connection with the recovery of the alleged contraband. Under such backdrop, there is no question of granting bail to the petitioner. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court records, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C (S.47 BNSS) does not indicate any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been detained in custody for more than one and half years and no any witness has been examined till date. 12. Coming to the question of non furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 Page No.# 5/7 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.” 13. In the 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. 14. 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.” 15. 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the ground of his arrest in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 222/2023. The grounds of arrest incorporated in the accused forwarding to learned CJM is not enough to provide information to the accused/petitioner about the grounds of his arrest. 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. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 57/2024 (corresponding to Guwahati GRPS Case No. 222/2023) under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two 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 Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. 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 No.2, Kamrup(M), 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court. Page No.# 7/7 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of this court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case. 18. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 19. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant