Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010135882024 2025:GAU-AS:8716 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2032/2024 AMIT GOPE AND ANR S/O AJAY LAL GOPE, R/O VILL- NABAGRAM, P.O.-GANDHIGRAM, P.S.- AIRPORT, AGARTALA, DIST-WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA-799012 2: HARICHARAN BISWAS S/O LATE NARAYAN BISWAS R/O VILL - RAJNAGAR PURBA GANDHIGRAM VTC - GANDHIGRAM DIST - WEST TRIPURA TRIPURA-79901 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU AT GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR I S MAZUMDAR (P1), MR N ALI (P1),A S PRODHANI (P1),S. TALUKDAR (P1),MR H R CHOUDHURY (P1) Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 26.06.2025 Heard Mr. I. S. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Amit Gope, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with NCB Crime No. 06/2024, under Sections 8(c)/21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that originally this bail application was filed for 2 (two) petitioners, namely, Amit Gope & Haricharan Biswas, but during the pendency of the present bail application, the petitioner No. 2 had filed a separate bail application, being numbered as Bail Appln. No. 2427/2025, wherein he was granted bail by this Court on the medical ground. But day before yesterday, the said accused Haricharan Biswas died and accordingly he submitted that the present bail petition is pending only for the petitioner No. 1- Amit Gope. Further he Page No.# 3/9 submitted that the accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 08.06.2024 and for last more than 1 (one) year, he has been in custody. He further submitted that on 30.05.2024, there was a raid in D.P. Warehouse at Gorchuk wherefrom Codeine Based Cough Syrup was alleged to have been recovered. But the present petitioner belongs to Tripura and he is neither the consignor nor the consignee of the said consignment which is booked at Kolkata and was alleged to have been brought in the D.P. Warehouse. He further submitted that the only allegation brought against the present petitioner is that he went to the said warehouse only to collect the consignment, along with 3 (three) others, as per the instruction of one of the co-accused, namely, one Suman Biswas, and he offered Rs. 10,000/- to the present petitioner only to collect the said consignment. Apart from that, he is no way connected in the alleged offence. 5. He further submitted that at the relevant time of incident, the petitioner was discharging his duty as a driver in the office of the Additional LR & Additional Secretary, Law, Government of Tripura and to that effect, one certificate is also issued by Mr. Ashit Debnath, the Additional LR & Additional Secretary, Law Department, Government of Tripura. Further he submitted that after recovery of the Codeine Phosphate from the warehouse, the police also made search in the house of the petitioner at Tripura, but there was no recovery was made from his house. As directed by the NCB Authority, the petitioner appeared and accordingly he was interrogated by the NCB. Thereafter, he approached before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tripura for bail and accordingly, he was granted bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tripura with an observation that the present accused/petitioner was acting under the Page No.# 4/9 instruction of one Suman Biswas when they went to collect the consignment at Agartala. In the said order, the petitioner was also directed to appear before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati in connection with the instant case and accordingly he also appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati wherein vide order dated 18.06.2024, he was directed to appeared before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) on the same day itself. Accordingly, he surrendered before the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M) on 18.06.2024 itself and vide order dated 18.06.2024, he was remanded to judicial custody with a liberty to file appropriate application for bail. 6. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner, as per orders of the different Courts, appeared and finally surrendered before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M), Guwahati and since then he is in judicial custody. He further submitted that during the pendency of the instant bail application, the petitioner also filed one interlocutory application, being I.A.(Crl.) No. 140/2025, praying for interim bail to attend the sharada ceremony after the death of his father and considering his case, co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted him interim bail on 20.02.2025 with a direction to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Jail, Guwahati on or before 03.03.2025. Thereafter, complying the order of this Court, the petitioner surrendered before the jail authority on 03.03.2025 and since then he is in custody. He further submitted that except the allegation that the petitioner went to collect the consignment, there is no other allegation of his involvement in the alleged offence to attract Sections 8(c)/21(c)/29 of NDPS Act. He further submitted that the case is still at the stage of appearance as one of the co-accused, namely, Suman Biswas, is Page No.# 5/9 still absconding. But the present accused/petitioner will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date if he is provided with the privilege of bail. 7. Apart from other issues, by filing I.A.(Crl.) No. 484/2025, the accused/petitioner also raised the issue of non-furnishing of ground of arrest while issuing the Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. by the authority concerned on 08.06.2024, which is mandatorily required and non-compliance of the same is in violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2024 and was remanded for judicial custody on 18.06.2024, but due to non-mentioning of grounds of arrest in the Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., the arrest and the remand itself is illegal. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 8. In this context also, Mr. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioner, cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. Page No.# 6/9 8. Mr. Mazumder also submitted that though in the case of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act follows, but in cases where there is violation of the constitutional provision as mandated under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India, the statutory restriction will not affect the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. More so, non-mentioning of grounds of arrest while issuing the Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. is itself in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and hence, without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to bail. 9. Ms. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB for the State respondent, submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner, along with 3 (three) others, were fully involved in the alleged offence and their involvement were also found in the CDR Analysis wherein it was found that there were several communications of the present accused/petitioner with the absconding accused, namely Suman Biswas. She further submitted that in the arrest memo, the present accused/petitioner put his signatures and thus, he is well aware about the grounds of arrest. She further submitted that considering the nature of allegation, which is of commercial quantity, the prayer for bail of the present accused/petitioner may not be considered at this stage and the probability of absconding of the accused/petitioner also cannot be denied at this stage. 10. Further Ms. Deka submitted that the case is of commercial in nature and hence, rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition has to Page No.# 7/9 be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. But, from the materials available in the Case Record and Case Diary, it cannot be said that the present petitioner is innocent, he has not committed such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if he is released on bail. Thus, she raised vehement objection and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. 11. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition. 12. From the record as well as from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen that the present petitioner had complied with all the order passed by different Courts and finally he also surrendered before the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, complying the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. Further it is also seen that after expiry of his interim bail, the petitioner also surrendered before the jail authority complying the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 13. Further it is seen that while issuing the said Arrest Memo as well as in Notice, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioner along with the case number as well as the Sections under which he was arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in Page No.# 8/9 the same. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused/petitioner or to his family members at the time of his arrest which is a statutory right of an accused and it is also a constitutional mandate that the person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest under which he was taken into custody of police. 14. In view of the entire discussions made above, it is the opinion of this Court that the period of incarceration undergone by the accused/petitioner may not be a good ground for considering his bail application at this stage. However, considering the conduct of the accused/petitioner and also considering the fact that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or mentioned in the Arrest Memo as well as Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C., this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 15. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup(M), Guwahati, the accused/petitioner, namely, Amit Gope, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup(M), Guwahati, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; Page No.# 9/9 (ii) that the petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup(M), Guwahati; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Kamrup(M), Guwahati, without prior permission. 16. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant