Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010106292025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1660/2025 SHRI CHANDRA JOY JAMATIA S/O- LALIT JAMATIA. R/O- DASO CHANDRAPARA, PO.- HADRAI, P.S.- TELIAMURA. DIST.- WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA, PIN-799205 2: SHRI KIACHINGHLA MOG S/O- LATE SATHALANG MOG R/O- VILL.- SIKARI BARI. P.O- AND P.S.- AMBASSA. DIST.- DHALAI TRIPURA,PIN-799289 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA (DRI) REPRESENTED BY SC, DRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.10.2025 Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, Page No.# 2/7 learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent DRI. 2. This bail application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Chandra Joy Jamatia and Kiachinghla Mog, who have been languishing in jail hazot since 13.01.2021, in connection with NDPS Case No.9/2022, pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, corresponding to DRI Case No.17/CL/NDPS/GANJA/DRI/GZU/ 2020-21, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/22/27A/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sri Ramekbal Roy, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati, on 13.01.2021. The essence of allegation against the accused is that on 12.01.2021, one 10 wheeler Container Truck, bearing registration No. AS-01-GC-5985, was intercepted near Khanapara Flyover, while the same was being driven by the present accused No.1 Chandra Joy Jamatia accompanied by his handyman, namely Kiachinghla Mog and during search 1078.400 kgs of Ganja (cannabis) in 70 packages were recovered from a specially made chamber, behind the driver’s cabin and thereafter, the same were seized in presence of witnesses. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused were arrested on 13.01.2021, and since then they have been languishing in jail hazot for more than 4 years. Referring to Arrest Memos of the Petitioner No. 1 and 2, i.e. Annexure No. 14 and 15, respectively, Mr. Dutta submits that though Memo of Arrest were furnished to the accused persons, yet at the time of arrest, Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and 50(A) Cr.P.C. has not been issued to them and as such, the fundamental rights of the accused, as guaranteed Under Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which is required to be followed as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha .Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269, is violated. 4.1 Mr. Dutta further submits that charges against the accused were framed on 11.01.2023 and since then, only 8 witnesses have been examined so far out of 13 witnesses Page No.# 3/7 cited in the Final Complaint, and that the last witness was examined on 09.12.2024 and since then no witnesses have been examined so far. And that being so, there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of the trail and as such, their right to speedy trial, so guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is violated here in this case. 4.2 Mr. Dutta, also submits that the accused are ready to face the trial and they will appear before the court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the DRI, referring to the bail objection petition of the respondent, submits that in fact the arguments concerning alleged non-compliance with arrest procedures (e.g., non-issuance of notice under Section 50/50A Cr. P.C. or relevant BNSS provisions) are primarily matters to be adjudicated during the trial and do not automatically warrant the grant of bail, particularly given the grave nature of the offence and the advanced stage of the trial. Mr. Kayel, referring to the arrest memo of accused Shri Kiachinghla Mog, at page 147 of the application, submits that therein it has been clearly stated that "he has been duly apprised of the grounds of his arrest and his arrest had been informed to his elder brother by phone" while the arrest memo of Shri Chandra Joy Jamatia states "he has been duly apprised of the grounds of his arrest and his arrest had been informed to his wife Smt. Chandra Radha by phone". In the arrest memo, the relationship of the family members are mentioned which has been duly signed/acknowledged by them. Mr. Keyal also submits that the legislative intent of Section 50 and Section 50A of Cr.P.C. is served by the arrest memo as the ground of arrest and information about the arrest to family members have been duly complied. 5.1 Referring to a decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos.3528 3534 of 2025), Mr. Keyal submits that while Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of ground does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. Mr. Keyal also submits that in the case Vihaan Kumar(supra), it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the Page No.# 4/7 accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. 5.2 Further submission of Mr. Keyal is that the trial is actively in progress and out of 13 witnesses cited in the final complaint, 8 witnesses have already been examined. Though some delay had occurred, yet, the same is not on account of the prosecution, but due to absconding of one of the co-accused. Mr. Keyal also submits that from the materials placed on record it is apparent that none of the aforesaid requirements could be satisfied by the accused and as such, the accused cannot be granted bail at this stage and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record along with the status report received from the learned Trial Court. Also I have gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties. 7. It appears from the scanned copy of the record of the learned Trial Court that the final complaint was submitted on 07.01.2022 and charge was framed on 11.01.2023, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c)/27A/29 of the NDPS Act and 8 witnesses have already been examined out of 13 witnesses cited in the Final Complaint. 8. From the bail application and also from the bail objection petition filed by the respondent authority and also from the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties that no Notice under Sections 50/50(A) Cr.P.C. has been issued to the accused persons or to their relatives at the time of their arrest. But, the respondent has relied upon the Memo of Arrest of the accused persons, at page No. 146 and 147 of the application to contend that though no Notice was issued to the accused persons communicating the ground of arrest yet in the Memo of Arrest the same has been furnished and the grounds of arrest had duly been communicated to Smti. Chandra Radha, wife of accused Chandra Joy Jamatia and to elder brother of accused Kischinghla Mog. But, it appears that as submitted by Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the accused the ground of arrest was not communicated in writing to the relatives of the accused as mandated in the case of Vihaan Kumar(supra). Page No.# 5/7 9. In order to appreciate the above contention this Court deemed it appropriate to reproduce one the Memo of Arrest, being enclosed at page No. 146 and 147 of the petition. ARREST MEMO PERMANENT ADDRESS Village :Daso Chandra Para P.O. :- Hadrai P.S.: Teliamar District West Tripura State : Tripura PIN Code- 799205 Shri Chandra Joy Jamatia is hereby arrested by me on 13/01/2021 under Section 42 of NDPS Act, 1985 on the reasonable belief that he has violated provisions of Section 8(c) of NDPS Act 1985 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c), 22, 27-A & 29 of Chapter IV of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985. He has duly been apprised the ground of his arrest and his arrest had been intimated to his wife Smt Chandra Radha by phone. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:- Acting on specific information a truck bearing registration No.AS-01GC-5985 at National Highway No.37, near Khanapara Fly Over Bridge on 12.01.2021. On checking of the said Truck 70 packets weighing 1078.400 kg(Gross Weight) of dry plant leaves with flowering top tops reasonably believed to be Ganja were recovered from the specially built secret cavity behind the Driver Cabin of the said Truck. The 1078.400 kg (Gross wt.) Ganja (Cannabis) along with a 10 wheeler Truck were seized vide DRI seizure Case No. -17/CL/NDPS/GANJA/DRI/GZU/2020-21, dated 13.01.2021 for contravention of provisions of Section 8 (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 by the said person. PARTICULARS OF THE PERSON ARRESTED: 1) Name :- Shri Chandra Joy Jamatia 2) Father's Name :- Shri Lalit Jamatia 3) Address :- Vill: Dasco Chandra Para, P.O. Hadrai, P.S. Teliamura, West Tripura, Agartala- 799205 4) Sex :- Male 5) Age :- 35 years. 6) Built :- Medium 7) Height :- 5 feet 6 inch 8) Complexion :- Fair 9) Hair :- Black 10) Eye:- : Black 12) Other distinguishable :- A black mole on the right side of his face marks for identification Sd/ SIGNATURE OF THE PERSON ARRESTED: 13/01/2021 Sd/ Signature of the officer affecting arrest Time 1400 hours रराईकचराल रराय Remekbal Roy Place- Guwahati Intelligence Officer Page No.# 6/7 10. It is to be noted here that in the case of Sri Darshan (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of furnishing of ground of arrest to the arrestee has held as under:- “20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC Online SC 456 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23 , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.” 11. As discussed herein above, in this case, no notice, either under Section 50 Cr.P.C. of Section 50-A Cr.P.C., communicating the ground of arrest was furnished to the accused. Notwithstanding, the arresting officer had furnished the Memo of Arrest, which, as discussed above, contains the ground of arrest, though not in clear terms as ground, but in substance, to them and also communicated the same to the wife and elder brother of the accused persons over phone. 12. Thus, having examined the Memo of Arrest and the contents thereof in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Darshan (supra), this Court left unimpressed with the submission of Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused persons and thereby violated the mandatory provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 13. It is, however, correct that the ground of arrest in writing was not communicated to the relatives of the accused persons, though there is material to suggest communication of the same to the wife and elder brother of the accused persons verbally over phone from the Memo of Arrest itself. And even if it is not communicated in writing, yet Page No.# 7/7 it had not been denied that the same were communicated over phone. If we apply the prejudice oriented test, as held in the case of Sri Darshan (supra) in para No. 20.1.5, it cannot be said that prejudice is caused to the accused persons, as Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the accused, had failed to demonstrate any visible prejudice to the accused persons. 14. Further, it appears that the quantity of contraband substances recovered from the possession of the accused are of commercial quantity, i.e. 1078.400 kgs of Ganja (cannabis). That being so, the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, that he is not guilty of the offence and he will not commit any offence while on bail, and unless these two conditions are satisfied with, the accused cannot be released on bail, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in Criminal Appeal No. 952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.2351 of 2023] and also in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif, in Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024]. And the learned counsel for the accused, from the record, failed to satisfy the twin requirement that the accused are not guilty of the offence and that they will not commit any offence while on bail. 15. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 16. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as practicable, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties. In the event of the trial being not concluded within a period of six months, then the accused persons will be at liberty to file fresh bail application before the learned trial Court and it is further provided that in the event of such an application being filed, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observation made herein above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant