Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010127902025 2025:GAU-AS:9749 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1960/2025 RAJU SAHA S/O BUDDHISWAR SAHA R/O BOXIRHAT, NEAR FIRE SERVICE OFFICE, P.S. BOXIRHAT DIST. COOCH BEHAR, WEST BENGAL. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR, S R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.T.Sarkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been Page No.# 2/5 filed by the petitioner, namely, Raju Saha, who has been detained behind the bars since 14.04.2024 (for more than 1 year 3 months) in connection with Special Case No. 492/2024, under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Additional), Dhubri arising out of Golakganj Police Station Case No. 77/2024. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 13.04.2024, one Hirak Jyoti Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Golakganj Police Station inter alia, alleging that, on receipt of an information through reliable sources, that large quantity of prohibited cough syrup is being transported from West Bengal side in a Star bus, a Naka Checking was organized at Chagolia Naka Point. During the Naka Checking operation, a Star bus bearing Registration No. AS 15C 1685 was intercepted and during search of the said bus, 73 numbers of cough syrup bottles as well as 27 numbers of cough syrup bottles containing codeine phosphate and one number of cough syrup bottle containing codeine phosphate was recovered from the said bus and the petitioner was apprehended therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 9(nine) listed prosecution witnesses, till date only 4(four) prosecution witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for the last more than 1 year 3 months. He also submits that the petitioner was working as a handyman in the bus from which the contraband was recovered and he is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that in the bus apart from the petitioner, there were other passengers as well as driver. However, only petitioner was Page No.# 3/5 apprehended and thus he was made a scapegoat in the entire case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that in this case on 14.04.2024, i.e. on the date when the petitioner was arrested, though he was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, said notice did not contain any ground of arrest and therefore, he submits that there has been violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in this case and on that ground he is entitled to get bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantity of contraband recovered in this case is of commercial quantity and therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He, however, fairly submits that the copy of notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was served on the petitioner and which is available in the case record, shows that it does not contain any other information except the police station case number as well as panel provisions involved in this case. 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 Special Case No. 492/2024. 8. The Apex Court in the case of “Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),” reported in “(2024) 8 SCC 254” as well as in the case of“Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” has observed that furnishing grounds of arrest to Page No.# 4/5 an arrestee at the time as soon as possible after his arrest is a constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory requirement under Section 47 of the BNS, 2023. 9. It is also observed by the Apex Court that any violation of the aforesaid constitutional mandate would result into rendering the arrest of such an arrestee illegal and on that ground only, such an arrestee may be allowed to go on bail. 10. In the instant case also, it is apparent from records that though the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was served on the petitioner at the time when he was arrested in this case, however, said notice does not contain any basic facts which necessitated his arrest in the above-noted case. Thus, there has been a violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and under such circumstances, the Fundamental Rights so guaranteed to the petitioner overrides the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the petitioner is entitled to get bail on that ground only. As the petitioner is found entitled to get bail, the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not required to be considered. 11. In view of the submissions made in the aforesaid paragraphs, 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 Trial Court with following conditions that:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Special Case No. 492/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge (Additional), Dhubri Page No.# 5/5 arising out of Golakganj Police Station Case No. 77/2024; 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. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant