Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010106972025 2025:GAU-AS:7205 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1629/2025 RAJU SENAPATI ALIAS BABATI SON OF PURNA SENAPATI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PITAMONI, POLICE STATION- GHILAMORA, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. DITUL DAS, MS TINLUNG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 03.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/5 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Raju Senapati @Babati, who has been detained behind the bars since 21.10.2024 in connection with Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 180/2024 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with Section 4 of the Assam Bhang and Ganja Prohibition Act, 1958. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.10.2024, one Rajdeep Newar, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of Biswanath Chariali Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that some prohibited ganja would be carried by a vehicle which is coming from Biswanath Chariali side, a naka checking was organized near Sadharu for intercepting the said vehicle. 4. During the naka checking, one vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-07/BC-5712 was found coming and it was signaled to be stopped. But the driver did not stop the vehicle, and fled away. 5. Later on, the said vehicle was found in a damaged condition and on search of the said vehicle, 22 Nos. of white plastic carry bags containing suspected ganja was recovered therefrom. On weighing of the ganja, it was found to be 314.68 Kgs. However, nobody could be arrested at that point of time, as the driver had already fled away. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is in no way involved in this case, however, he was arrested by police merely on suspicion on 21.10.2024. He submits that though the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 at Page No.# 3/5 the time of his arrest, however, the said notice did not contain any basic facts which necessitated his arrest in the said case. It did not contain any ground of arrest. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that furnishing grounds of arrest to an arrestee is a Constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and violation of the Constitutional Mandate would entitle him to be released on bail on that ground only. 8. He further submits that though the petitioner even after completion of 180 days of the detention in this case, was not released on bail as his period of detention was extended by order dated 30.04.2025 by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath on the basis of an application made for extension of the detention period of the petitioner filed by the Investigating Officer on 29.04.2025. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the extension order dated 30.04.2025, passed by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath was also in violation of the statutory provisions contained under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 10. He submits that no report of the Public Prosecutor was there indicating the progress of the investigation and special reasons for detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no notice to the petitioner was given before extending his period of detention beyond 180 days. He further submits that as the extension of the period of detention beyond 180 days was in violation of the statutory provisions Page No.# 4/5 contained in Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985, the extension of the detention of the present petitioner beyond 180 days was illegal and on that ground also, he is entitled to get bail. 12. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 180/2024 and has submitted that the vehicle from which the seized contraband was recovered belonged to one Bitul Senapati, who had sold the same to one Bharat Kotoki and the present petitioner as well as the broker for selling of the said vehicle. He also submits that there are witnesses, whose statements have been recorded under Section 181 of the BNSS, 2023. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary of Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 180/2024. 14. It appears that there is no material in the Case Diary, which as of now, links the petitioner with the contraband which was seized in connection with this case. It also appears that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 which was served on the petitioner after his arrest does not contain the grounds of his arrest. No basic facts which necessitated his arrest has been stated in the said notice. Further, it also appears that the extension order dated 30.04.2025, passed in NDPS Case No. 45/2024, whereby the period of detention of the present petitioner beyond 180 days was extended also does not appear to be in compliance with the provisions provided in proviso to Section 36A(4) of the BNSS, 2023 and therefore, it appears that such extension without there being any report from the Public Prosecutor before the Court which granted the extension Page No.# 5/5 is also illegal. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, further detention of the petitioner is not justified and therefore, he is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath with following conditions that:- (i) That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court. (ii) 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. 16. Send back the Case Diary. 17. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant