Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100252025 2025:GAU-AS:7524 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1522/2025 PHUSURI RABHA AND ANR WIFE OF NIRAKTA RABHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -MUDUKI, POLICE STATION - PALASHBARI, DISTRICT- KAMRUP, ASSAM 2: SABERI RABHA W/O KALU RABHA R/O VILL-MUDUKI P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MS TINLUNG,MR A TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 09.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ditul Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing Page No.# 2/5 for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Phusuri Rabha and 2. Saberi Rabha, who are detained behind the bars since 07.05.2024 (for the last 307 days), in connection with NDPS Case No. 02/2025, corresponding to Palashbari P.S. Case No. 274/2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 07.08.2024 one Rikhab Borah, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Palashbari Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 07.08.2024 at about 5.30 AM, an information was received by the Officer-in-Charge of Palashbari Police Station that some persons were transporting some drugs from Garilick side to Palashbari. On receipt of the said information, a naka checking was arranged and a vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. AS- 25-CC-1887 was intercepted with the accused persons inside the said vehicle and on search of the vehicle, 31 Kgs. of Ganja was recovered from the said vehicle. 4. Though the prayer for bail of the present petitioners on earlier occasion was rejected by this Court in Bail Application No. 2801/2024 on 15.10.2024, however, this time the petitioner has approached this Court on an additional ground that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the petitioners at the time of their arrest and no notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was served on them, when they were arrested. He submits that only notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 before their body was searched was given, however, after their Page No.# 3/5 arrest they were not informed about the grounds of arrest. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case, the arrest of the petitioners itself is vitiated due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana And Another” reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.” 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and on an earlier occasion, on the said ground the prayer for bail was rejected. However, he fairly submits that after going through the scanned copy of the Case Diary, which is available in the Court, he could not find the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. The petitioners are detained behind the bars for the last 307 days. 8. It also appears that furnishing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his or her arrest is the requirement as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. As held by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana And Another” (supra) non-compliance of the constitutional mandate of furnishing the Page No.# 4/5 grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee would vitiate the arrest itself and under such circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to get bail. 9. In the instant case also, as there has been non-compliance of the mandatory constitutional provisions under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, both the above-named petitioners are entitled to get bail. 10. In view of the above, both the above-named petitioners, are hereby directed to be released on bail of furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- each with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup(Amingaon), with following conditions that:- (i) That the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation of the NDPS Case No. 2/2025; (ii) That the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the NDPS Case No. 2/2025, as and when so required by him for the sake of fair completion of the investigation; (iii) That the petitioners 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 Investigating Officer; (iv)That the petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card as well as Mobile Number, and other contact details to the Investigating Officer; Page No.# 5/5 (v) That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup(Amingaon) without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court the petitioner shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and (vi) That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant