Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010118682025 2025:GAU-AS:9195 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1826/2025 SAKINUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE ABDUL JABBAR@ LATE ABDUL JOBBAR. VILL.- MADHUSOULMARI PT- I, P.S GAURIPUR, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD. P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM, A R MONDAL,MR A HAWARI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 16.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Golakganj P.S. Case No. 20/2025, under Section 61(2) of BNS read with Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 2021 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. Nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the present accused/ petitioner and he was only the driver of the vehicle and was not aware about the contraband which was alleged to have been kept in the vehicle at the time of interception. He further submitted that the accused is in custody for last 160 days and thus, the I.O. got sufficient time/opportunity to interrogate him keeping him in custody and hence, his further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. He further submitted that the co-accused, who was also arrested in connection with this Page No.# 3/8 cae, has already been granted bail by this Court vide Order dated 08.05.2025, passed in Bail Appln. No. 1278/2025, and hence, considering the case of the present petitioner on the same footing, he may also be released on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Mr. Islam also raised the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest while issuing Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS as well as in the Arrest Memo at the time of his arrest. He accordingly submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the present accused/petitioner in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, which itself is in violation of Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It is the mandate of the Constitution of India that the accused/petitioner as well as his family members should be intimated the grounds of arrest. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 6. In support of his submission, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. Page No.# 4/8 7. Mr. Bothakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the accused/petitioner cannot be granted bail only on the ground of parity as there was no recovery of any contraband from the conscious possession of the co-accused, which itself is reflected in paragraph No. 3 of the order dated 08.05.2025, passed in Bail Appln. No. 1278/2025, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that he was arrested in connection with this case only on the ground that the vehicle which was seized in connection with this case was parked in fount of his house. But, here in the instant case, the alleged contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner along with other co-accused persons from the vehicle which was driven by the present petitioner. 8. Further Mr. Borthakur submitted that the case is of commercial in nature and hence, rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition has to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. But, from the materials available in the Case Record and Case Diary, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is innocent, he has not committed such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if he is released on bail. Thus, he raised vehement objection and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. 9. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that it is not a case that the accused was subsequently arrested in connection with this case, but he was caught red Page No.# 5/8 handed and the contrabands were recovered from his conscious possession and thus, it could not be stated that the accused/petitioner was not aware about his arrest or the grounds of arrest. More so, there was sufficient compliance of providing the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS as well as the Arrest Memo wherein the accused had put his signature. In that context, Mr. Borthakur further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of 2025] and basically relied on paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held that for compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence and the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand as to whether he has been arrested. Paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of the said judgment reads as under: “27. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). On learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in a position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the information will enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. For these reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible. 28. For the purposes 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.” 10. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that the case is still under investigation and some of the co-accused persons are yet to be nabbed in connection with this case and hence, further custodial interrogation of Page No.# 6/8 the present petitioner may be required for the interest of investigation. 11. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in a case of commercial quantity. As stated above, in a case of commercial quantity, rigor of Section 37 will follow wherein the twin condition has to be satisfied before granting bail to an accused person. But, from perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that there are sufficient evidence so far collected by the I.O. against the present accused/petitioner and accordingly, there cannot be any reason to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. 12. Further it is seen that the case of the co-accused person, who was earlier granted bail by this Court, cannot be considered on the same footing to allow the present accused/petitioner to go on bail on the ground of parity. 13. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regards to communication of grounds of arrest, it is seen that the accused/petitioner was arrested/caught red handed and the entire contraband was recovered from his conscious possession along with other co-accused persons. Thus, it cannot be said that he was not aware about the grounds of arrest when the entire contraband was alleged to have been recovered from his conscious possession. It is a fact that there is no mention of detail of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused while issuing the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, but the accused was well aware about the reasons for his arrest and he also put his signature accordingly. Further, Page No.# 7/8 from the rejection order passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, it also reveals that on interrogation, the present accused/petitioner, along with other co-accused persons, had confessed regarding their involvement in smuggling of cattle from Bangladesh border and suspected contraband from Boxirhat, West Bengal and all the articles were packed and seized on the spot itself in presence of the witnesses and the whole process was also videographed. Thus, from these observations of the learned Special Judge also, it is seen that the accused/petitioner was very much aware about the offence which is alleged to have been committed by him as well as the grounds of arrest. 14. In the light of the discussions made above and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, vis-à-vis the materials so far collected by the I.O., this Court is of the opinion that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies in the present case, and the twin conditions for grant of bail remain unsatisfied. Further, mere non-mentioning of detailed particulars of the alleged offence in the Notices issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, in a case where the accused was apprehended at the spot and the contraband was recovered from his conscious possession, cannot by itself be a ground for grant of bail, especially when the materials on record reflect that the accused was fully aware of the reasons for his arrest. The constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) mandates only that the grounds of arrest be communicated in a manner sufficient to enable the arrestee to understand the nature of the arrest, which appears to have been duly complied with in the present case. Moreover, in view of the fact that the investigation is still in progress and certain co- accused persons are yet to be apprehended, this Court finds that further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may be necessary for a fair and effective investigation. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected. Page No.# 8/8 15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 16. The Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant