Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010084652025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1268/2025 ABDUL MATALIB S/O. LT. MD SOUKAT ALI, R/O. VILL.- KELBUNG MAKHA LEIKAI, P/S. LILONG, DIST. THOUBAL, MANIPUR. 2: ALTAF HUSSAIN @ ALTAF HUSSAIN S/O. LT. MEHAMUD KHAN R/O. VILL.- LILONG HAONEI MAKHA LEIKAI P/S. LILONG DIST. THOUBAL MANIPUR. 3: HAFIJAR RAHMAN S/O. MANCHHAR ALI R/O. VILL.- SHUKANUR KUTHI P/S. DINHATA DIST. COOCHBEHAR WEST BENGAL VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, RIJUANA BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Page No.# 2/6 ORDER 14.05.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. N. J. Dutta for the petitioners namely, (i) Abdul Matalib, (ii) Md Altaf Hussain @ Altaf Hussain, and (iii) Hafijar Rahman. 2. The petitioners have filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 17.08.2023 in connection with SPL (Nar) Case No. 153(M)/2023 arising out of Manikpur P.S. Case No. 151/2023 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act with added Sections of 23(C)/27(A) of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted that at the time of arrest, the Investigating Officer has issued notices under Section 50 of the Cr.PC corresponding to Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 to the petitioners but the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the notices in violation of Article 21 & 22(a) of the Constitution of India curtailing the fundamental rights of the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), wherein it has been observed that:- “20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of Commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offences has a fundamental and a 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 Page No.# 3/6 course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 22.The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana, wherein it has been observed that:- “21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article Page No.# 4/6 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Constitution is established.” 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised objection against the bail petition stating that the petitioners are booked under heinous offences. They are guilty of transportation of 4.892 kgs of yaba tablets. It is submitted that circulation of such huge quantity of yaba tablets is harmful to the society and to the youth. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that they will commit similar offence of this nature to the detriment of the society at large. 8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. I have also scrutinized the arrest memo and the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC in the Trial Court Records. 9. It is submitted that no notice under Section 48 of the BNSS and Section 50(a) Page No.# 5/6 of the Cr.PC has been issued to the petitioner’s family members. It is true that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners in a manner understood by the petitioners. 10. I am hesitant to grant bail as investigation has progressed considerably and the case is at the fag end of the trial. However, a close scrutiny of the Trial Court Records reveals that grounds of arrest have not been communicated in a manner understood by the petitioners. 11. During investigation, the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with Vihaan Kumar's case (Supra) and Prabir Purkayashtha's case(Supra) have not been complied with. 12. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar's case (Supra) and Prabir Purkayashtha's case (Supra), it appears that bail has to be granted to the petitioners. 13. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lac with 2 (two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: (i) The petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged, (ii) The petitioners shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them, and (iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till completion of trial. 6. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners. 7. In terms of the above observation, Bail Application stands disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant