Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010098572025 2025:GAU-AS:8064 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1532/2025 PURUSHOTAM KUMAR S/O- TRIPTI NATH RAM. VILL.- RAMPUR, P.S.- BIHIYA AND P.O.- BIMARE, DIST.- BHOJPUR, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M AHMED, B DAS,MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK ORDER 18.06.2025 Heard Mr. Abdul Matin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. The petitioner, namely, Purushotam Kumar, son of Tripti Nath Ram resident of Village- Rampur, P.S.-Bihiya, District-Bhojpur, Bihar, has filed this application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on 08.05.2025 praying for his bail in Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024, arising out of Page No.# 2/5 Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, registered under Section 120 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act, 1985, trial of which is presently pending before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaion in which he was arrested on 01.04.2024 and is in custody since then. 3. The petitioner earlier filed Bail Application No. 2248/2024 in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024 arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, which was rejected by this Court on 12.11.2024. 4. This is petitioner’s 2nd bail application in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024 arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024. Contention of the petitioner in this petition is that while arresting him on 01.04.2024 in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, authorities concerned of Bongaigaon GRPS did not comply with the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and did not inform him the grounds and reasons of his arrest. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that in terms of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha -Vs.- State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269, he is entitled for his bail in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024. 6. Perused the records of the case that was called for by order dated 15.05.2025. 7. As per the FIR dated 31.03.2024, the prosecution’s case is that on receipt of specific information police personnel from Bongaigaon GRPS apprehended the petitioner on 31.03.2024 at New Bongaigaon Junction while he was travelling in Brahmaputra Mail Train No. 15658 DN (KYQ- DLI) from Kamakhya Railway Station, Maligaon, Guwahati towards Bongaigaon and recovered 52.434 Kgs. of Cannabis wrapped in tapes from the possession of the petitioner, three from his blue coloured trolley bag, two from his maroon colour trolley and two from his green colour pithu bag that were duly seized following the procedure in presence of independent witnesses. 8. The petitioner was arrested on 01.04.2024 and was produced before the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon on 01.04.2024 in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024. 9. The total NDPS item recovered from the possession of the petitioner was 51 Kgs. and the FSL report dated 03.06.2024 confirmed the NDPS items recovered from the possession of the petitioner to be Cannabis (Ganja), a NDPS item. 10. After completion of the investigation of the case, Charge-Sheet in said Bongaigaon GRPS Page No.# 3/5 Case No. 37/2024 was submitted on 30.06.2024 vide Charge-Sheet No. 55 against the petitioner under Sections 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act. 11. After filing of the charge-sheet in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, it was registered as Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024. 12. Charge under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act was framed against the petitioner on 19.08.2024, to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 13. It is also seen from the records of the case that as on 21.05.2025, out of 13 prosecution witnesses named in the charge-sheet, prosecution have adduced evidence of two of its witnesses who were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence on behalf of the petitioner. 14. From the records of the case, it is seen that authorities of Bongaigaon GRPS complied with the provision of Section 50A of the CrPC, informing the father of the petitioner, Tripti Nath Ram pertaining to the arrest of his son, the present petitioner over phone, informing him the relevant case number and the penal Sections under which he was arrested in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case. 15. From the records of the case, however it is seen that while arresting the petitioner on 01.04.2024 in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, though notice under Section 50 CrPC was served upon him, which he received on 01.04.2024 itself by giving his acknowledgment, but the same is not in conformity with the provisions of Section 50 of the CrPC as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and Vihaan Kumar (Supra). 16. As it is seen from the records of the case that authorities of Bongaigaon GRPS while arresting the petitioner on 01.04.2024 did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 CrPC and therefore, the authorities of Bongaigaon GRPS had violated the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India while arresting the petitioner in said Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024. 17. Considering such materials in the case records and since the police personnel of Bongaigaon GRPS while arresting the petitioner on 01.04.2024 in Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024 did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 CrPC and thereby violated the Provisions of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is entitled for his bail in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, the Page No.# 4/5 trial of which is presently pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaon, if he is not required in any other criminal case. 18. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Purushotam Kumar, son of Tripti Nath Ram be released on bail in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), only with 2 (two) local sureties, each of the like amount, one of which shall be a Government employee, either State or Central, permanently serving in the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaon subject to the conditions that the petitioner, named above — i) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaon without obtaining prior written permission from the said authority, till disposal of said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024; ii) shall regularly attend the Trial before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaon in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024 and shall co-operate with the said Special Court during the trial of the said case till its disposal; iii) shall not hamper and/or tamper with the evidence of the case; iv) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court and v) shall not involve himself in any criminal activities in the future. 19. Violation of any of the aforesaid terms and conditions by the petitioner, namely, Purushotam Kumar, the bail granted to him in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. 37/2024 shall stand automatically vacated. 20. It is also made clear that the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Bongaigaon shall be at liberty to impose any other conditions, as it deems fit and proper at the time of releasing the accused petitioner, named above, on bail in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024, to procure his attendance during the trial of the said case. 21. It is observed that this order relates to bail of the accused petitioner, namely, Purushotam Kumar in said Special (Nar) Case No. 83 (Bgn)/2024 arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No. Page No.# 5/5 37/2024 and not on merits of the case. 22. With the above observation and direction, this bail application stands allowed to the extent above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant