Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010091722025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1365/2025 MD ROFIJUDDIN ALI S/O SOYFUL ALI R/O VILL-ISLAMPUR, JAMLAI P.S. NAGARBERA DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MR M HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 15.05.2025 Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed for the 2nd time by the petitioner, namely, Md. Page No.# 2/4 Rofijuddin Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 12.02.2024, in connection with NDPS Case No. 30/2024 in connection with Palashbari PS Case No. 52/2024 (corresponding to GR No. 188 (K)/2024) under Sections 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected by this Court by order dated 12.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 2631/2024. 4. The gist of accusation in this case is that on the basis of a FIR lodged by one Mr. Rikhab Borah, Sub-Inspector of Police on 11.02.2024 whereby it was alleged that the petitioners were found in possession of 270 grams of suspected heroin in black coloured bag which they were carrying in a car driven by them, Palashbari PS Case No. 52/2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, was registered and on completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid and trial is going on before the court of Learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup (Amingaon). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in his earlier application, the petitioner has not taken the ground of non-furnishing grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest which he has taken in the instant bail application. He submits that the petitioner was not furnished any notice under Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, at the time of his arrest, an arrest memo was prepared, and on which his signature were obtained. In the said arrest memo also only the particulars such as time and place of arrest are mentioned. However, no basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the said case i.e. Palashbari PS Case No. 52/2024 was mentioned therein. He therefore submits that the constitutional mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory requirement of furnishing the same under Section 15 of the Cr.PC has been violated in this case and therefore his arrest has become vitiated and on that Page No.# 3/4 ground he was entitled to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that after going through the signature copy of the case record of Special NDPS Case No. 30/2024 which was requisitioned from the Trial Court, no notice under Section 15 could be find in default. He submits that only the arrest memo is available in the said record which only mentions about the police station case no and panel provisions involve in the case. No grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the said arrest. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 has observed that informing a person arrested on the grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement and any violation of such constitutional mandate and statutory requirement would entitle the arrestee to be released on bail. 9. In the instant case also as there appears nothing on record which would suggest that the grounds of arrest were furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest there appears to be violation of constitutional mandate as well as statutory mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore entitled to go on bail on that grounds. 10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and also considering the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner, the above-named petitioner in the aforementioned case is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakhs only) with a suitable surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, with Page No.# 4/4 following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special NDPS Case No. 30/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 11. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. 12. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant