Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010117202025 2025:GAU-AS:8870 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1825/2025 SHAJAHAN AHMED S/O- ABUL HUSSAIN. R/O- VILL.- JOKIALA, P.O.- ERALIGOOL, P.S.- PATHERKANDI, DIST.- SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788723. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRSENTED BY THE LD. PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MISS. P M AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 27.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ahmed for the petitioner Shajahan Ahmed who has filed his application under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 04.03.2024 in connection with Special Page No.# 2/5 NDPS Case No. 23/2024, arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 30/2024 under Sections 21(b)/21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. S. Lahkar for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind bars since 04.03.2024 and not a single witness has been examined so far. The petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed. 9 PWs are enlisted as cited witnesses in the charge-sheet and culmination of trial appears to be remote as not a single witness has been examined so far. 200 yaba tablets and 150 gms of heroin was seized, not from the possession of the petitioner. Jamil Hussain and Suhel Ahmed were found in possession of the contraband and they have confessed that they were carrying the contraband for Jahirul Islam. This accused Jahirul Islam was travelling in the petitioner's vehicle when he was apprehended. At the time of the incident, the petitioner was in jail for mobile theft. No grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State of NCT, Delhi, reported in 2024 8 SCC 254, where it has been held and observed that:- “ 19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of conumission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a 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. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate, oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 3/5 20. The right to life and personal liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20. 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard, we may refer to the following observations made by this Court in Rev V.D. v. State of Kerala (SCC p. 593, para 7) "7 The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognised and applied in all civilised countries. In our Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to aliens. XXX XXX XXX 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. “ 4. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been shown as arrested in connection with this case. 5. Per contra, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashi Reddy Upenda Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors, wherein vide order dated 23.05.2025 in connection with Crl.Appeal No. 2808/2025 arising out of SLP Criminal No. 7746/2025, it has been observed that:- “36. If a person is arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself, if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds for his arrest. If he is arrested without a warrant, he must be told why he has been arrested. If he is arrested for committing an offence, he must be told that he has committed a certain offence for which he would be placed on trial. In order to inform him that he has committed a certain offence, he must be told of the acts done by him Page No.# 4/5 which amounts to the offence He must be informed of the precise acts done by him for which he would be tried: informing him merely of the law applicable to such acts would not be enough.” 6. The FIR unfolds that on 10.02.2024, on a tip off, a naka checking was held in front of Ratabari P.S., and a vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-05-A2735, a Maruti Eco van approaching from Champai, Mizoram towards Patharkhandi was intercepted by the investigating team and the accused persons Jamil Hussain and Suhel Ahmed were found inside the vehicle. They admitted that drugs were being concealed in a secret chamber under the body of the rear seat of the vehicle and 150.64 grams of Heroin along with 218.28 grams of Yaba tablets were found in the vehicle and seized along with other articles. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that another apprehended accused Jahirul Hussain was found sitting inside a vehicle bearing registration No. AS-11-X5343 and the present petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. This is not the vehicle which was transporting drugs. Moreover at the time of the incident, this petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with Patharkhandi P.S. Case No. 34/2024 which is marked as Annexure-2 of the petition. 8. I have scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. 9. The notice under section 50 of the CRPC is indeed cryptic and not in conformity to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha's case (Supra). Moreover, the warrant and challan according to the accused after being shown as arrested in connection with this case is also cryptic. 10. At this juncture, this Court is thus impelled to grant bail to the petitioner. 11. I have also considered the submission that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle which was not transporting drugs but a co-accused was later arrested Page No.# 5/5 during the course of investigation and the co-accused was travelling in the petitioner’s vehicle. 12. The merits of this case are not brought to the fore. 13. I have considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the petitioner's prayer for bail is allowed. 14. The petitioner is to be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. 1 lac) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged, and (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission, till conclusion of trial. 15. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 16. This application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant