Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010109782025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1791/2025 PRATIMA DEBBARMA D/O SURESH DEBBARMA VILL- SRI HARI BARI, TARAPUR P.S. EAST NOAGAON DIST. WEST TRIPURA (TRIPURA). VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : M U BARBHUYAN, MRS. H THAKURIA,F K R AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. F. K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Pratima Debbarma, who has been detained behind the bars since 07.03.2024 (for last 1 year, 4 months and 7 days) in connection with Lumding GRPS Case No. 18/2024 corresponding to NDPS Case No. 93/2024 Page No.# 2/4 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 07.03.2024, one Nandeswar Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of GRPS Lumding, inter alia, alleging that on that day after receiving an information through reliable sources that a huge quantity of ganja will be transported by some female person in Train No. 13174 DN (Agartala-Sealdah Kanchenjunga Express), a search team was constituted and a search operation was carried out. During the search operation, one lady was found sleeping on Berth No. 47, with one airbag and one trolley bag. When the said bags were checked, 20 packets wrapped in brown coloure plastic tapes suspected to be ganja was found therefrom. On weighing the said contraband, the weight of the same was found to be 20 Kg. 500 grams. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since more than one year and four months. He submits that he has moved his bail application mainly on the ground of violation of the constitutional mandate of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of her arrest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of her arrest, though notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. was furnished to the petitioner, however, said notice contained no grounds of arrest therein and only the case number was mentioned. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is in violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) SCC Online SC 269”., wherein the Apex Court has Page No.# 3/4 observed that furnishing grounds of arrest in writing at the time of arrest of an arrestee is the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any violation of the said mandate would render the arrest of the petitioner itself illegal and, therefore, under such circumstances the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case the trial is going on and already 5(five) prosecution witnesses have been examined, however, he fairly submits that the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. which was served on the petitioner at the time of her arrest on 07.03.2024 does not contain the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in this case. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 9. In this case though the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, however, it appears that the constitutional mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India of providing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner, in writing, was not complied with in this case and as per the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra), the petitioner is entitled to get bail on that count only. 10. Without further discussing the other aspect of this case, this Court is of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get bail mainly on the grounds of violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the above name petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Page No.# 4/4 Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, with following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 93/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai. 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 her contact details including photocopies of her 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 her 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