Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010128382024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1924/2024 RAJU DEBNATH S/O LATE JITENDRA DEBNATH, R/O RAMKRISHNA PARA ICDS, BHURATALI, KALACHERRA, P.S.-SOUTH TRIPURA, DIST-SOUTH TRIPURA, TRIPURA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 10.04.2025 Heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Raju Debnath, has Page No.# 2/6 prayed for bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 108/2023 (arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 629/2023) under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi(Karimganj). 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 22.08.2023, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-Charge of Karimganj Police Station, alleging that, based on secret information received by the O/C, Karimganj, narcotic drugs were to be transported in a traveler bearing registration number AS-24-C-4424 by a male passenger. Upon receiving the information, the police team, after obtaining necessary instructions, proceeded to Bakarshal Toll Gate. After a few minutes, when the police signaled the bus to stop and conducted a search, they found the petitioner along with four bags under the seat, which contained a total of 22.435 kg of ganja. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one and half years since his arrest on 22.08.2023. It is also submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted vide C.S. No. 592/2023 dated 31.12.2023 and the learned trail court has framed charge on 07.02.2024 against the petitioner. It is further submitted that out of eight witnesses, six witnesses are government officers but till date only one witnesses is examined. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence. The actual fact is that on the relevant date of the incident, the petitioner was travelling to Silchar for his medical checkup. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bare Page No.# 3/6 perusal of the arrest memo as well as notice under Section 50 of Cr.P.C., it is very much evident that no grounds of arrest was ever communicated to the petitioner nor based on what grounds the petitioner was taken into custody and the said aspect is mandatory in nature. 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that whenever a person is arrested in connection with an offence, he should be furnished with the ground of his arrest in writing at the earliest. It the present case, the record reveals that no such grounds was furnished to him causing his arrest which is mandatory in nature. 8. It is also submitted that The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Kumar Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 has held that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for any other offence, has to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing which is a fundamental and statutory right but the same mandate of law has not been followed in this case. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid irregularities occurred during investigation, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 9. Per contra, Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. As the commercial quantity of contraband items are involved in the instant case as such, the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into play. Hence, the Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed in granting bail to the petitioner. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the Page No.# 4/6 petitioner. 10. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the trial court record. 11. Section 47 of BNSS (Section 50 Cr.P.C)- Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail.-(1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 12. Coming to the case in hand, notice issued to the petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C vide Karimganj P.S. Case No. 629/2023 which is reproduced below- “ You are hereby informed of your arrest in connection with the below referred case/circumstances. The case is Non-Bailable of police. Case No. & Section of law, G.D. Reference and circumstances and P.S.- Karimganj PS Case No. 629/2023 U/S 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. Signature of Arrested person- Raju Debnath Signature of the arresting Officer: SI(P)Nishi Ranjan Dey Designation: Sub Inspector Date and Time: 23.07.2023” 13. From the aforesaid particulars, as mentioned in Section 50 notice, it does not disclose any grounds of arrest being informed to the petitioner in connection with Karimganj P.S. Case No. 629/2023. 14. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– Page No.# 5/6 “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 15. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioner dated 23.07.2023 that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds for his arrest in connection with Karimganj P.S. Case No. 629/2023. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 108/2023 (arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 629/2023) under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Page No.# 6/6 Sessions Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Sessions Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of this court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case. 18. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant