Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010094312025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1520/2025 SUSANTA RUDRA PAUL S/O NANI RUDRA PAUL R/O VILL-GAMAIBARI P.S. TELIAMURA DIST. KHOWAI, TRIPURA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed by the Page No.# 2/5 petitioner, namely, Susanta Rurdra Paul, who has been detained behind the bus since 25.12.2024 (for last 204 days) in connection with Bazaricherra P. S. Case No. 211/2024 under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The gist of acquisition in this case is that on 24.12.2024, one Longsing Kro, SI of Police, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Bazaricherra Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources but one vehicle bearing Registration No. NLAD 1696 would be carrying prohibited narcotic substance, the search team was constituted and a Naka checking was arranged at National High Way No. 08. During Naka checking, the aforesaid vehicle was intercepted and the petitioner was found driving the said vehicle on search of the vehicle on 16,290 grams of suspected YABA Tablet was recover from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking bail mainly on the ground of violation of the Constitutional Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 47 of the BNSS. He submits that at the time of his arrest on 24.12.2024, notice under Section 47 of the BNSS was served on him. However, the said notice does not contain the ground of arrest. It only mentions the Case No, in which the petitioner was arrested as well as the penal provisions therein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the rulings of the Apex Court in the Case of Pabir Purkayastha V. State (NCT of Delhi) Reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 as well the case of Vihaan Kumar V. State of Haryana and Another Reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, wherein, it was observed that furnishing the grounds of arrest, in writing, who, an arrestee at the time of his arrest the Constitutional Mandate contained under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and any violation of the said mandatory requirement would rendered the arrest of such an arrestee is illegal and in such circumstances, the petitioner is Page No.# 3/5 entitled to get bail. He submits that in the instant case also as the mandate of the Constitution as observed in the aforesaid cases have been violated. The petitioner is entitled to get bail. In the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the contrabands seized in this case is of commercial quantity and therefore, embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS is applicable to this case, however, he also submits that notice served of the petitioner under Section 47 is insufficient compliance statutory as well as requirements as there is clear indication in the said notice as to which case the petitioner has been arrested and for what offence he has been arrested. Therefore, vehemently oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for being both the sides and have gone through the records available before this Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana (Supra) and Another, the Apex Court has observed as follows: “20. 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) has been made. The reason is that due to non-compliance, the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore, the arrestee cannot be remanded after arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights. 26. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant’s wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest Page No.# 4/5 memo in the present case. The same contains only the information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest. “ 6. In the instant case, it appears from the copies of notice under Section 47, which is available in the record that only information regarding arrest of the petitioner in connection with Bazaricherra PS Case No. 211/2024 was informed to the petitioner as no other information apart from the case no and the penal provisions involved in the case was there in the said notice. It also appears that the Arresting Authority is required to state the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS at the time of the arrest of the petitioner. However, no such basic facts are there in the notice which was served to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. This Court is of the considered opinion that the notice under 47 of the BNSS, which was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest mainly given intimation regarding his arrest in connection with Bazaricherra PS Case No. 211/2024 and it does not furnish the grounds of arrest and therefore, the same is in violation of the Constitutional mandates of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as Statutory requirement provided under Section 47 of the BNSS. 7. In the view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana (Supra), under such circumstances the arrest of the petitioner would become illegal and on that ground itself he is entitled to get bail in this case. 8. For reasons, discussed in the forgoing paragraphs, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one Page No.# 5/5 surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Shribhumi, with following conditions : i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Sessions Special NDPS No. 135/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS)-cum-Sessions Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj). 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 Adhar 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. 9. This Bail Applications accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant