Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010104522025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1595/2025 JAKIR HUSSAIN S/O-HARAW @ HARAB @ HORAB ALI, R/O- ISLAMPUR, JAMLAI, P.S- NAGARBERA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MS TINLUNG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 19.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jakir Hussain, who has been detained behind the bars since 12.02.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 30/2024 corresponding to Palashbari P.S. Case No. 52/2024 under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, presently the above noted case is pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. Page No.# 2/4 3. This is for the second time, the present petitioner has approached this court seeking bail in the above noted case. On the earlier occasion, his prayer for bail was rejected by this court on 12.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 2631/2024. This time the petitioner has moved this Court for bail on some additional grounds like not furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the meanwhile, one of the co-accused, Md. Rofijuddin Ali has already been granted bail by this Court on the grounds of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to the said accused. Both the petitioners were forwarded before the learned Special Judge under the same forwarding letter and in case of present petitioner also, the grounds of arrest were not furnished. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the pending trial of the NDPS Case No. 30/2024, out of total 6(six) witnesses, 3(three) prosecution witnesses have been examined. However, they were again recalled on an application by the prosecution side. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of the arrest of the present petitioner, though notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was served on him, however, it did not contain any grounds of arrest. Apart from mentioning the police station case number as well as penal provisions involved in the case, no other information was furnished to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that in this case there has been clear violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on that ground the petitioner is entitled to get bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Page No.# 3/4 Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) SCC Online SC 269”. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the present petitioner is the main accused in the case from whose possession contraband was recovered and there are sufficient incriminating materials against him. However, he fairly submits that from the certified copy of the notice under Section 50, which is available in the record, it appears that the same contains no grounds of arrest. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on records. 9. The Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra) has observed that informing an arrested person the grounds of his arrest in writing at the time of his arrest is mandatory requirement under constitutional provision contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any violation of such constitutional mandate would entitle such an arrestee to be released on bail. 10. In the instant case also, it appears that though notice under Section 50 was served up on the petitioner, however, same does not contain any basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in Palashbari P.S. Case No. 52/2024 and no grounds of arrest has been mentioned in this same notice. Thereby, there has been a violation of constitutional mandate as well as statutory mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his arrest. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get bail only on that count. 11. For the reasons discussed herein above mentioned paragraphs, the petitioner, namely, Jakir Hussain is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- Page No.# 4/4 (Rupees One Lakh) only with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, with following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 30/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 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 Aadhar 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. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is hereby disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant