Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010105082025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1606/2025 MISTAL HAQUE S/O- ABDUL AZIZ. R/O- KUCHIMARA, P.S.- MANKACHAR, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA, ASSAM, VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MR. D. ZAKARIA,MS. N.A. BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 22.05.2025 Heard Mr. S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. By filing this second bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, namely, Mistal Haque, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 161/2023 (Arising out of Jalukbari PS Case No. 269/2023) registered under Sections 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup(M). Page No.# 2/5 3. The factual matrix leading to this bail application is that on 05.05.2023, on the basis of a secret information, the police personnel of Jalukbari police station had conducted a Naka checking in front of DCPW Office and subsequently, a bus bearing Regd. No. AS-01-QC-2372 was detained. During search, 9,200 nos. of suspected Yaba tablets were found and was seized accordingly. Thereafter, a case was registered and apprehended the accused persons in connection with this case. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than two years since his arrest on 06.05.2023. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid within the stipulated time. Though charge was framed but the prosecution has failed to complete the trial during the period of two years. 5. It is further submitted that the contraband as alleged in the FIR, has been recovered from one Matibar Bhuyan and the present petitioner has been arrested on the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act of the co- accused Matibar Bhuyan, which is not admissible in the eye of law and the same is elaborately discussed in the case of Toofan Singh vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. 6. The main thrust of argument for the learned counsel of the petitioner is that no grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner in the notice served on him U/S 50 Cr.P.C. (U/S 47 BNSS) which is mandatory in nature, thereby violating the mandates of Articles 21/22 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail. 7. In response, learned Addl. P.P has submitted that trafficking of commercial Page No.# 3/5 quantity of contraband was involved in the instant case. Hence, Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into play. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner while notice was issued under section 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the trial court record. 9. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1244, wherein it was held that the written ground of arrest must be furnished to the arrested persons and if the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA Act, 2002 and consequently, the arrest, subsequent remand of the arrested persons cannot be sustained. 10. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) could be squarely applicable in cases under the UA(P)Act or for that matter, any other offences. The accused persons have a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and the copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested persons as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested persons would vitiate the arrest, if the case has been chargesheeted. 11. In the recent case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that not informing the arrested persons about the grounds of arrest would amount to violation of Page No.# 4/5 fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and this alone would be a ground to grant bail to the accused persons even if statutory restrictions exist against the grant of bail. 12. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha(supra), it is specifically stated in para 45 which is reproduced as follows – “45. We are of the firm opinion that once this court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” 13. In view of the above, the settled principle of law is that an arrested persons must be informing about the grounds of their arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against the arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in the Section 50 Cr. P. C notice as well as in the arrest memo issued to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 269/2023. 14. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 161/2023(arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 269/2023) under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of Page No.# 5/5 the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam without prior written permission from him/her till disposal of the case; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (c) 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. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of the Court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case. 17. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 18. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant