Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010090912025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1388/2025 MD. SAFIQUR RAHAMAN S/O- MD. RIYAJUDDIN. R/O- LILONG HAOREIBI, TUINEL AHANBI LING, NEAR NOR HOSPITAL, P.O- LINONG, P.S- LILONG. DIST.- THOUBAL, STATE- MANIPUR, PIN-795130 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR U S BORGOHAIN, M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 22.05.2025 Heard Mr. U.S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel representing NCB. Page No.# 2/6 2. By filing this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Md. Safiqur Rahaman, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 131/2021 (corresponding to NCB Crime No. 06/2021) under Sections 22(c) & 29 NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M). 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 06.03.2021, on receipt of secret information, the NCB officials searched one ford car bearing Regd. No. MN-05-A- 7260 and recovered 10.276 kg of Methamphetamine tablets which were seized and arrested the petitioner along with one co-accused. Accordingly, the instant case was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 6.03.2021 and since then he has been detained in custody. Charge sheet has been laid on 01.09.2021 and charge was framed on 07.04.2022. However, out of cited fifteen witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till date. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 01.09.2021, the arresting authority did not mention the grounds of arrest in notice under section 50 Cr.P.C. which violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 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. 6. Per contra, Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel representing the NCB has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the alleged contraband item was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is also Page No.# 3/6 contended that since the case is of commercial quantity and as per investigation, the seized drugs were supplied from Myanmar to Monipur and further to Guwahati and after that it was to be sent to Chennai and it is proved that the petitioner is involved in international syndicate of the alleged drugs, as such, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail at this stage. 7. 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 four years and out of fifteen witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined in connection with this case. There is no explanation from the side of the NCB why they failed to complete the trial during such long period of four years. 8. 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 Page No.# 4/6 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 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.” 9. 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. 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 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.# 5/6 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 ground of his arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 06/2021. 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. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail 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 District & Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M). The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional District & 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. 13. 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. 14. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. Page No.# 6/6 15. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant