Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010085692025 2025:GAU-AS:5966 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1370/2025 ABDUL HASIM S/O- LATE ABDUL MANNAN, VILL- SINGARIA, P.O- SINGARIA BAZAR, P.S- NILAMBAZAR, DIST.- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S. TALUKDAR, A S PRODHANI,MR H R CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 14.05.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. H. R. Choudhury for the petitioner Abdul Hasim. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 07.06.2023 in connection with SPL (NDPS) Case No. 59/2023 arising out of Page No.# 2/6 Nilambazar P.S. Case No. 111/2023 under Sections /22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed as the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.2023. Only 1 out of 20 witnesses have been examined so far. It is submitted that the culmination of trial appears to be remote as there are 20 witnesses to be examined in connection with this case. Trial has been procrastinated by the Court as well as by the State. Moreover, the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner in a manner to be understood by the petitioner. 5. Annexures-5, 6 & 7 are the notices under Section 50 of the Cr.PC, inspection memo and the arrest memo which clearly reveals that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner to be understood by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for bail on the ground of parity as the co-accused who is on the same footing has been enlarged on bail in connection with Zabel Hussain @Jabel Hussain Vs. The State of Assam in B.A. No. 3015/2024, wherein vide order dated 08.04.2025, this Court has granted bail to the co-accused of this petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials and a prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner was apprehended while transporting 300 gms of heroin. The petitioner is booked under a heinous offence and he is not entitled to bail. 7. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Page No.# 3/6 8. It is true that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner to be understood by the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar-vs- State of Haryana & anr. reported in 2025 (0) Supreme (SC) 283, wherein it has been observed that:- “13. Therefore, as far as Article 22(1) is concerned, compliance can be made by communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same. Therefore, it follows that the grounds of arrest must be informed in a language which the arrestee understands. That is how, in the case of Pankaj Bansal1, this Court held that the mode of conveying the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. However, under Article 22(1), there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested to consult an advocate of his choice and the right to be defended by an advocate. If the grounds of arrest are not communicated to the arrestee, as soon as may be, he will not be able to effectively exercise the right to consult an advocate. This requirement incorporated in Article 22(1) also ensures that the grounds for arresting the person without a warrant exist. Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested. That is why the mode of conveying information of the grounds must be meaningful so as to Page No.# 4/6 serve the objects stated above. 14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), wherein it has been observed that:- “18. In the present case, 1st respondent relied upon an entry in the Page No.# 5/6 case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary, there must be a contemporaneous record, which records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.” 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra), it appears that bail has to be granted to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner is thereby 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 petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which she is alleged, (ii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them, and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till completion of trial. Page No.# 6/6 11. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 12. In terms of the above observation, Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant