Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100042025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1601/2025 ROBICHAN ALI ALIAS RUP CHAND ALIAS ROBI CHAND ALI SON OF JABED LI R/O VILL-BIRSING PT. 2, P.S.FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, A S CHOUDHURY,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 21.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Robichan Ali @ Rup Chand @ Robi Chand Ali, who has been Page No.# 2/5 detained behind the bars since 22.10.2024 (for last 271 days) in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 313/2024 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.09.2024, one Jyotirmoy Das, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dhubri Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that two suspected persons would be carrying large amount of narcotic substance inside a blue colour bag at Kalibari road area, a search team was constituted and two suspects persons, namely, Md. Hoydar Ali and Md. Rashidul Ali were intercepted. During their search, twelve nos. of Eskuf Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup cough syrup containing 100 ML per bottle was found from their possession. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he has been implicated in this case on the basis of statement made by the accused persons who were apprehended from the spot at the time of recovery of the seized contraband. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fact that nothing except the statement of the co-accused is there on record against the present petitioner. He has also approached this Court seeking bail on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as at the time of his arrest, notice under Section 47 of BNSS which was served on him did not contain any grounds of arrest. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor though has stated that in this case the quantity of contraband seized is of commercial quantity, however, he fairly submits that on perusal of the notice under Section 47 of BNS which is available on record, it appears that no grounds of arrest was furnished to the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner when he was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the case records of Special Case No. 16/2025. 8. The Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799”has observed as follows:- “26. Therefore, we conclude: 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. 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) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a Page No.# 4/5 ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 9. Though, it appears that if at the time of arrest of an arrestee, he is not furnished with the grounds of arrest in writing, it would be violation of his fundamental right guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in such a case, his arrest itself becomes vitiated and, therefore, on that count he is entitled to get bail. 10. In the instant case also, on perusal of the notice under Section 47 served of the BNS that such notice contains no basic facts which necessitated his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case, no grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, the petitioner, is therefore, entitled to get bail on that count only. 11. Accordingly, in view of above, the named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special Case No. 16/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri. 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 not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by Page No.# 5/5 the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant