Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010135472025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2086/2025 NIMAHA NARZARY S/O- LATE KHANDURA NARZARY. R/O- VILL.- DEOCHANI, KWDWMGURI, P.O. AND P.S.- MAJBAT, DIST.- UDALGURI-BTAD, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nimaha Narzary, who has been detained behind the bars since 06.02.2025 (for last 5 months 11 days) in connection with Rangapara GRPS P.S. Case No. 01/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 corresponding to Special (NDPS) Case No. 29/2025 before the Court of learned Page No.# 2/4 Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. 3. This case was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Rajen Rajbonshi, before the Officer-in-charge of GRPS Sonitpur, inter alia, alleging that 20 kg 300 grams of suspected ganja was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner along with one co-accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is praying for bail in this case mainly on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory rights guaranteed under Section 47 of the BNSS. He submits that though notice under Section 47 of BNSS was served on the petitioner on 06.02.2025 when he was arrested, however, said notice does not contain any grounds of arrest. He, therefore, submits that merely on the said ground the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799”. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case, in the meanwhile, charge-sheet has already been laid. However, after perusing the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, he also clearly submits that same does not contain the grounds of arrest. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 8. The Apex Court in this case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” has observed as follows:- “26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); Page No.# 3/4 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge- sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge-sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 9. It is seen from above that the Apex Court has observed that when a person is arrested, at the time of his arrest, the grounds of arrest are to be furnished to him in writing and if same is not done, it would be a violation of the constitutional mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and on that account, the arrest of such an arrestee would instead become vitiated and for the same reason, such an arrestee is entitled to get bail. 10. In this case also, there has been a violation of the aforesaid constitutional Page No.# 4/4 mandate as the notice served on the petitioner does not contain any grounds of arrest. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get bail in spite of the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as said, the embargo is overridden by the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of up to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Sonitpur, Tezpur with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special (NDPS) Case No. 29/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. 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 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 her leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant