Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010113322025 2025:GAU-AS:9827 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1749/2025 AMINA KHATUN W/O SAFIQUL ISLAM R/O HOUSE NO. 19, KALIMANDIR PATH BEHARBARI, P.S. BASISTHA DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STASTE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N.A. BEGUM,MR A RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Munir, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/7 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Amina Khatun, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.02.2025, in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 118/2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 21.02.2025 one Biplab Roy, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of Basistha Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that the present petitioner has stored suspected ganja in her rented house situated at Kalimandir Path, Beharbari, search team was conducted and a search operation was made. During search of the house of the present petitioner, 21.605 Kgs of suspected ganja was recovered from the house of the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is seeking bail in this case mainly on the ground that no grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner when she was arrested in connection with this case. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though notice under Section 47 as well as under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 were served on the petitioner and her relatives, however, said notices do not contain any grounds of arrest. He also submits that even the arrest memo, of which Page No.# 3/7 the certified copy has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court does not mention any grounds of arrest. He, therefore, submits that in this case there has been violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and on that ground, he is entitled to get bail. 6. In support of his submissions, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799.” 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Das, has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity and hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He also submits that the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is to furnish grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his arrest in writing and same has been duly complied with this case. He fairly submits that though, in notice under Section 47 as well as under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, no grounds of arrest has been mentioned, however, in the arrest memo prepared at the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest has been mentioned in detailed, a copy of which is available in the Case Diary. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submits that on the said arrest memo, the signatures of the petitioner as Page No.# 4/7 well as impression of her right thumb have also been obtained. He also submits that there is also an endorsement in the Case Diary made by the Investigating Officer that at the time of arrest that after the arrest of the present petitioner, the said arrest memo was served on the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that there has been no violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in this case and therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the Case Diary of Basistha P.S. Case No. 118/2025. 10. The question to be decided in this bail application is as to whether the petitioner was furnished with the grounds of arrest, in writing, soon after his arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as under 47 of the BNSS, 2023. 11. On perusal of the materials on record, including the Case Diary which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it appears that in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 which was served on the petitioner, no ground of arrest has been stated therein. Neither the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner, have been mentioned in the said notice nor full particulars of the offence for which he has been arrested have been stated therein. It only contains the police station case number and Page No.# 5/7 sections of NDPS Act involved in the case. Nothing beyond that. 12. Thus, it does not confirm to the requirements of Section 47 of the NDPS Act or Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Though, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the Case Diary there is an endorsement of the Investigating Officer that grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioner as per the arrest memo, inspection memo and notice under Section 47 BNSS, 2023, however, the certified copy of the arrest memo produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not indicate that the same contains any grounds of arrest for which the petitioner was arrested. When the statute provides that full particulars of offence for which an accused has been arrested has to be there in the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 and when the law has been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” (supra) that furnishing of such grounds of arrest, in writing, is mandatory. Any violation thereof would entitle the arrestee to get bail on that ground itself. 13. In the instant case, it is apparent that the prosecution side has failed to prove that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner. The grounds of arrest were communicated in the petitioner in writing as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State Page No.# 6/7 of Haryana and Another” (supra). Hence, on that ground the petitioner is entitled to go on bail. 14. In view of the above discussions, the above- named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati with following conditions that:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Basistha P.S. Case No. 118/2025, under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 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 his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, 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 his 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. Page No.# 7/7 15. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. 16. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant