Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010126392025 2025:GAU-AS:12667 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1942/2025 MOFIZUR RAHMAN S/O -LT HUSSAIN ALI, R/O- GOURIPUR, WARD NO- 4 (OLD)/ 13 (NEW), P.S- GOURIPUR, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN -783331 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P BARMAN, MS J A RAHMAN,MR K THAKUR,MR. SANU HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 15.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Hussain learned counsel for the petitioner Mofizur Rahman who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 14.04.2024 in connection with Special Case No. Page No.# 2/5 511/2024 arising out of Golakganj Police Station Case No. 78/2024 under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind bars for a prolonged period. His right to personal liberty had been curtailed as the weight of the contraband has not been correctly mentioned in the inventory. 4. The grounds of arrest have not been properly communicated to the petitioner in a manner which the petitioner could understand. 5. The petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate in Criminal Appeal no. 234/2025 wherein vide order dated 21.08.2025 it was held that:- “ 1. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Supreme Court had negated the submission of the learned counsel for the accused respondent that an arrest would be illegal if the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C, now Section 47 of the BNSS. However, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the decision of the Supreme Court therein is to the effect that the grounds of arrest has to be in writing and has to be furnished to the relatives of the arrested person. Thus, there appears to be dichotomy of views in the different decisions of the Supreme Court. However, keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar (supra). Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra), we are of the view that the grounds of arrest in writing would have to be made known, not only to the arrested person, but also to the family/relative of the arrested person. Page No.# 3/5 2. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc.(Supra), we are of the view that the non furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing, to the family/relatives of the arrested person immediately, cannot be said to be illegal or violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and section 47 of the BNSS. However, the grounds of arrest have to be furnished within a reasonable time. In the present case, the accused/respondent was arrested on 19/05/2025 and till the date of filing of the written objection by the appellant in Bail Application No. 486/2025 i.e. on 02/06/2025, the brother/relatives of the accused/respondent had not been provided a copy of the grounds of arrest. This delay of approximately 18 days, in our view, is beyond reasonable time, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra). As such, the requirement of making the relatives of the accused/respondent aware of the grounds of arrest of an accused not having been made within a reasonable time, it can be said that the said delay could make the arrest illegal in terms of Vihaan Kumar (Supra). **** **** **** 3. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam, in granting bail to the accused/respondent. It may also be worthwhile to mention that in the records, there is nothing to show that the father of the accused/respondent had been given the grounds of arrest of the accused/respondent.. ” 6. The FIR unfolds that on 13.04.2024, at about 6.30 p.m. a naka checking was held and all vehicles coming from West Bengal were thoroughly checked. One Ultra Bus bearing regd. No. AS-15C-7121 approaching from Cooch Behar was signaled to stop by the investigating team. After thoroughly checking the vehicle, Pyeevon Spus Plus Capsules and Roscof Cough Syrup kept in two black coloured bags were found concealed under the passenger’s seat No. 22. The seat was occupied by the petitioner, who was apprehended. 720 Pyeevon Spus Plus Capsules, 190 Roscof Cough Syrup bottles were seized from the bags and the petitioner was forwarded to custody. Page No.# 4/5 7. Annexure-H is the notice under Section 50 of the C.r.P.C issued to the petitioner who has accepted the notice by affixing his signature in English. Annexure-I is the notice under Section 50-A of the C.rP.C. which was received by Ayub Ali. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan reported in 2025 SCC online SC1702 wherein it has been held that:- “20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest -but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.2. Courts are not expected to render findings on the merits of the case at the bail stage. 20.2.1. It is a settled principle that at the bail stage, courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of evidence or rendering findings that touch upon the merits of the case. Only a prima facie assessment of the material is warranted. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or record conclusions that could influence the outcome of the trial.” 9. Reverting back to this case, it is held that initially no plea was taken relating to the date when the notice under Section 50 of the C.r.P.C or under Section 50- Page No.# 5/5 A of the C.r.P.C was served upon the petitioner or his relatives. The petitioner has accepted the notice and he has affixed his signature in which it is amply clear from the notice that the petitioner was informed that he was arrested in connection with a non-bailable offence and he may submit his bail petition before the Court. Subject reference reveals the FIR No. and the Sections under which the petitioner was booked. The notice reveals that the notice was served on 14.04.2024 to the petitioner. Notice under Section 50-A of the C.r.P.C. also reveals that the notice was served on 14.04.2024 to the relative of the petitioner and the subject reference clearly reveals the FIR No. as well as the Sections under which the petitioner has been booked and forwarded to custody. 10. It could be deciphered from the notices that the petitioner as well as his relatives was informed about the grounds of arrest. The argument on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner could not understand the grounds of arrest is not accepted. 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Darshan (supra), the bail petition of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. 12. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial for speedy disposal of the trial. JUDGE Comparing Assistant