Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010109322025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1671/2025 GOGOU HOUKIP S/O- JAMLAL HAOKIP, R/O- VILLAGE GANGJANG, P.S AND DIST- CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K DAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO,MR. M BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 13.06.2025 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By filing this application u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Gogou Haukip, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No.03/2024 ( Page No.# 2/8 corresponding to North Guwahati P.S. Case No.111/ 2023) u/s 21 (C)/29 of NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on 11.09.2023, as per source information that a vehicle bearing no.AS-01-FM-7800 was carrying large quantity of narcotic drugs. Accordingly, a naka checking was conducted at Amingaon and subsequently aforesaid vehicle was intercepted wherein three occupants including the present petitioner were found inside the vehicle. On being searched, 170 soap boxes containing heroin weighing about 2 kg 100 grms were recovered. Accordingly, the occupants of the car were arrested and the recovered contraband was seized. 4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier bail application vide B.A 964/2025 was rejected by this Court on06.05.2025. Now the petitioner has filed this application on new grounds that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, the I.O issued a notice u/s 50 Cr.P.C. (Section 47 BNSS) wherein the ground of arrest has not been mentioned in the said notice and thus violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 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. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one and half years since his arrest on 12.09.2023. Out of 9 (nine) witnesses, only 3 (three) witnesses have been examined till date. As such, there is no chance of completion of trial within a short span of time. As such, considering the Page No.# 3/8 background of the case, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In this regard, learned counsel has referred the following case laws – (i) Kamaljit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (2005) 7 SCC 226. (ii) Avdhesh Kumar Roy and Anr. Vs. The State of Assam, in BA 1253/2025. 6. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the alleged contraband item was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As such, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying on para No. 28 of the judgment of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., reported in SLP(CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “for the purpose of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case.” 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also referred the case of Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) 16 S.C.R. 743, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “as discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, “henceforth”, Page No.# 4/8 meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word “henceforth” implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi for the Appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary “henceforth” that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence, non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra).” 9. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), it was held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused. However, the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) can be made applicable only to arrests made after the said decision rendered by the Apex Court on 03.10.2023. In other words, in respect of arrest made after 03.10.2023, an arrestee must not only be made known the grounds of arrest, but the same must also be communicated in writing. Under such backdrop, there is no question of granting bail to the petitioner as the petitioner was arrested on 11.09.2023 i.e. prior to pronouncement of the judgment of Pankaj Bansal(supra). 10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and Page No.# 5/8 also perused the trial court record. 11. It is true that the petitioner was arrested prior to the judgment/order of the Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), wherein it was held that the written ground of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person 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 person cannot be sustained. But this proposition of law has been expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent cases vide Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and Vihaan Kumar (Supra). 12. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), 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 has 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 person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge- sheeted. 13. In the recent case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that not informing the arrested person about the grounds of arrest would amount to violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and this alone would be a ground to grant bail to the accused even if statutory restrictions exist against the grant of bail. 14. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it is specifically stated in para 45 which is reproduced as follows – Page No.# 6/8 “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.” 15. It is pertinent to say here that this Court has earlier resolved the issues on the point of wrongful detention in the case of Ajit Kumar Sarmah vs. State of Assam, reported in 1976 SCC OnLine Gau 30, which is reproduced as follows- “The provision of Section 50 is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. A citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. Even if any communication about the offence was orally made by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, we do not know what kind of communication was made, whether the communication of the full particulars or the mere section of the offence was told to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we hold that the arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 was in violation of Section 50 Cr.P.C…….” 16. In view of the above, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informing about the grounds of his 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 Page No.# 7/8 instant case, there is no reflection in the Section 50 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 North Guwahati P.S Case No.111/2023. 17. 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. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No.03/2024 (corresponding to North Guwahati P.S. Case No.111/2023) u/s 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 surety should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon 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. 19. 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. Page No.# 8/8 20. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 21. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant