Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010096452025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1473/2025 SMTI MOHINI DAS ALIAS MUHINI DAS WIFE OF LATE NUMOL DAS RESIDENT OF MACHARHAT NEAR MACHARHAT NAMGHAR UNDER JORHAT POLICE STATION IN THE DISTRICT OF JORHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U CHOUDHURY, K. SUMI,MR. B M CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.M Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 Page No.# 2/4 for granting bail to the petitioner who was arrested on 09.04.2025 in connection with Jorhat Police Station case No. 174/2023 under Section 21(b)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The facts of the case, as revealed from the FIR dated 08.04.2025 is that upon receiving reliable information from a source, regarding illegal sale of NDPS substance, the Officer-In-Charge of Jorhat Police Station, directed the informant, the S.I of Jorhat Police Station to proceed for verification and necessary action. 4. As such, police team, comprising of 6 police personnel along with the informant, went to the location and upon reaching the place of occurrence, they apprehended one Dibyajyoti Das who disclosed that he used to procure drugs from the petitioner. Sri. Dibyajyoti Das also revealed that more drugs were stored in the house of the Maina Das, the son of the petitioner, and that, Maina Das used to entrust his mother i.e. the petitioner for selling drugs. As such, on these allegations, the petitioner was arrested from her premises. 5. The police team conducted search of the house of Maina Das and found the following items along with the contrabands : (I) 14 tobacco containers containing a total of 8.41 grams of suspended heroin. (ii) Six insulin syringes. (iii) One blue Nokia mobile phone. (iv) Cash amounting to Rs. 3,320/- (Denomination Rs. 500*2, Rs. 200*2, Rs. 100*18, Rs. 20*1, Rs. 10*1). 6. After completing all the formalities, the police personnel apprehended the petitioner along with others. Page No.# 3/4 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the following points : (I) The petitioner has been inside the jail for 52 days. (ii) The weight of all the contraband is in the intermediate category. (iii) The grounds of arrest, as required under Section 47 of B.N.S.S were not given neither it was explained to the petitioner. 8. Per contra, Mr. M.P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam, by examining the Case Diary of the instant case has stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that she was charge-sheeted in other cases prior to the instant case. He also submitted that the grounds of arrest were, in fact, given to her as well as explained to her as required under the law. 9. I have considered the submissions at the bar and I have examined the records of the case and I find that the contrabands, along with the other articles, were in fact seized from the house of Maina Das, who was the son of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner lives in that house and it cannot be said that she has no connection with the articles in question. The articles were, in fact, seized from the godrej inside the house of Maina Das from where the petitioner used to sell the contrabands. 11. So, it is writ large that the petitioner had the knowledge that the contrabands were in her place, more so in the godrej. 12. The other grounds advanced by Mr. B.M Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were not given as per law, neither it was explained, is not sustainable in law, in as much as, it is seen from the notice dated 09.04.2025 that detailed grounds of arrest, specific to the person arrested were, in fact, given and there is enough compliance of article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as reflected therein. Page No.# 4/4 13. Page No.# 4/4 13. Further, it is seen from the said notice itself as jotted down from 1-6, the grounds of arrest were, in fact, communicated to the petitioner. As such, the said arguments cannot be accepted. 14. The other grounds that the petitioner was inside the jail for 52 days is also not sustainable, in view of the fact that the requirement is that if a person stays for 60 days without the charge-sheet, then he is entitled for default bail but here it is 52 days. 15. As such, the instant bail application is rejected on the grounds mentioned above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant