Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010121422025 2025:GAU-AS:9967 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1888/2025 SHARWAN SINGH S/O LATE PEP SINGH R/O BANDWA, TEHSIL- RATANGARH, P.O. RAJALDESHAR, P.S. RAJALDESHAR, DIST. CHURU, RAJASTHAN. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, MR. A BHARDWAZ,MS. A K CHOPHI,S K DAS,A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01-08-2025 1. Heard Mr. M.Biswas, 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.# 2/5 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sharwan Singh, who has been detained behind the bars since 29.10.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 17/2025 arising out of Lumding GRPS Case No. 86/2024 under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS) , Hojai at Sankardev Nagar. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 29.10.2024, one Tapan Baishya of Railway Protection Force had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In- Charge of Lumding Railway Station that during a regular checking duty conducted in Train No.12423 DN Rajdhani Express, 1.12 Kgs of suspected morphine was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking bail in this case mainly on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch, as no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the notice served on him at the time of his arrest under Section 47 of BNSS. He submits that in the said notice, apart from the police station case number as well as penal provision, no other information which constitute the basic fact which necessitated his arrest were mentioned therein. He also submits that in the arrest memo, prepared under Section 35 of the BNSS only reasons for arrest which are formal in nature which cannot be recorded as grounds of arrest were mentioned therein. He submits that the reasons for arrest are quite different from the grounds of arrest as clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayashta vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein it was observed at paragraph-37 as follows: Page No.# 3/5 “37. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge that the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the accused in writing vide the arrest memo is unacceptable on the face of the record because the arrest memo does not indicate the grounds of arrest being incorporated in the said document. Column No. 9 of the arrest memo(Annexure P-7) which is being reproduced hereinbelow simply sets out the ‘reasons for arrest’ which are formal in nature and can be generally attributed to any person arrested on accusation of an offence whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested. 9. Reason for arrest a. Prevent accused person from committing any further offence. b. For proper investigation of the offence. c. To prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner. d. To prevent such person from making any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police officer. e. As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the Court whenever required cannot be ensured.” 5. He therefore submits that in the instant case, the constitutional mandate of providing grounds of arrest, in writing, to the petitioner at the time of his arrest has not been followed and therefore on that count itself, he is entitled to get bail in this case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that though this case involves contraband of commercial quantity, however, the notice under Section 47 served on the petitioner, a copy of which is available in the case record does not indicate any grounds of arrest therein. He also submits that arrest memo at the time of the arrest of the petitioner contains reasons for arrest therein. Page No.# 4/5 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of NDPS Case No. 17/2025. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case Prabir Purkayashta vs- State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) has observed that the grounds of arrest are to be furnished to an arrestee in writing as soon as possible after his arrest and any violation of the said requirement would be infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also distinguished between phrases “reasons for arrest “ and “grounds of arrests” as discussed in paragraph No.4 of this order hereinbelow. 8. In the instant case, thus it appears that at the time of arrest of the above named petitioner though notice under Section 47 of the BNSS was served on him, it is devoid of any grounds of arrest or any particulars which would indicate the basic fact which necessitated his arrest in the case. Thus, there has been a violation of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and on that count itself, the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. 9. In view of above discussion, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lac only) with 02(two) suitable sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Hojai at Sankardev Nagar with following conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 17/2025; and (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court. Page No.# 5/5 10. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant