Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010106102025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1624/2025 ASIF ALI ALIAS KANDU ALIAS ASHIF ALI S/O LT. ABDUL MOJID R/O VILL- SOUTH SALMARA PT.II P.S. SOUTH SALMARA DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, ASSAM PIN-783127 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MS J A RAHMAN,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 27.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Asif Ali Alias Kandu Alias Ashif Ali, who has been detained behind the bars since 07.01.2025 (for the last 139 days) in connection with South Salmara P.S. Case No. 04/2025, under Section 21(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 05.01.2025, one Kaushik Dutta, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of South Salmara Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information from secret sources that one person, namely, Tozzammil Hoque, is selling narcotics drugs from his house and a search operation was conducted in the house of said Tozzammil Hoque, and certain amount of Tramadol Tablets, Nitrazepam Tablets, along with 13(thirteen) grams of suspected heroin was recovered from the said house. Later on, the present petitioner was also arrested in connection with this case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and he has been implicated in this case mainly on the basis of the statement of the co-accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in “(2021) 4 SCC Page-1.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, at the time of his arrest, however in the same notice, no grounds of arrest were stated. It did not contain any basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the same case. He submits that his constitutional rights protected Page No.# 3/5 under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory right under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 has been violated in this case and on that ground itself, he is entitled to get bail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile three of the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court. 8. On the other hand, Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has produced the case diary of South Salmara P.S. Case No. 04/2025 and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the case. 9. However, he fairly submits that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 which was served on the petitioner does not contain grounds of arrest. It only contains the police station case number and the penal provisions involved in the case. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available in the case diary. 11. It appears that on a bare perusal of the notice which was served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 at the time of his arrest, it appear that apart from mentioning the reference of the South Salmara P.S. Case No. 04/2025 and the penal provision involved i.e. 21(b)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, no other basic fact are stated in the said notice, it contains no grounds of arrest. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that an arrestee is entitled to be furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest in writing. Same is the mandate of Constitution under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory requirement under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section Page No.# 4/5 52 (1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 13. The Apex Court in the case of “Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma” reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 240 has observed that in the event there is any violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner in relation to his arrest, the Court has no choice but to grant bail. 14. Any violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India of furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of arrest to an arrestee would vitiate such an arrest and under such circumstances, he is entitled to get bail only on that count. 15. In the instant case also, there is a violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory mandates as discussed herein above and for that reason only the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 16. The above-named petitioner is, accordingly, allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation of the South Salmara P.S. Case No. 04/2025; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the South Salmara P.S. Case No. 04/2025, as and when so required by him for the sake of fair completion of the investigation; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be Page No.# 5/5 acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer; 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 to the Investigating Officer; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 17. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. 18. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant