Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010144352025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2137/2025 JITAN AHMED LASKAR SON OF ASAB UDDIN LASKAR R/O VILL- KAJIDAHAR PT.III, P.S. SONAI DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. RAJARSHEE DE, MR. S C BISWAS,MS. S. CHANDA,MR. F A HASSAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Boro, learned Standing Counsel for the DRI. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jitan Ahmed Laskar, who has been detained behind the bars Page No.# 2/6 since 19.03.2025 in connection with DRI Case No. 8/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-25 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that acting on a specific information shared by the officials of DRI, Zonal Unit, along with the assistance of Customs, Assam Rifles (38th Unit) intercepted one four-wheeler Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-11-J-9160 on 18.03.2025 near Bhaga Bazar area of Cachar district. The petitioner was found driving the said vehicle. On search of the said vehicle in specially designed catity under the rear seat of the vehicle, 6 (six) rectangular package were recovered and from those package, yaba tablet containing methamphetamine weighing about 2.97 Kgs. were recovered therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is an 18 year old young boy and working in the working in a garage, namely, M/s A. K. Motor Works. He submits that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle on trial after same was repaired. He also submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle and he was not aware about the fact that such that the recovered contraband were concealed in the cavity below the rear seat of the said vehicle. He submits that as the petitioner was unaware about the fact that the vehicle which he was driving contain contraband seized therefrom, he cannot be regarded as having conscious possession of the said contraband. 5. The learned counsel for the of the petitioner has further submitted that in the instant case, the fundamental rights of guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has also been violated in as much as the no notice under Section 47 of BNS was furnished to him neither his relative/friend/ nominated person were communicated about the grounds of arrest by serving Page No.# 3/6 them notice under Section 48 of BNS. He, therefore, submits that on the ground of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guarantee under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, he is entitled to get bail in this case. 6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the DRI has vehemently opposed the grant of the bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was found in conscious possession of the contraband which was recovered from the vehicle which he was driving before it was intercepted by the officials of DRI. He further submits that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an employee of a garage, namely, A. K. Motor Works are not true as during the field verification by the officials of the DRI, it was found that the said story has been falsely projected by the petitioner only to get bail in this case and no such workshop could be located in the vicinity, however, one M/s A. S. Autoworks was found. It is also submitted that the registered owner of the vehicle Mr. Foysal Ahmed Laskar was also found to have been lodged in District Jail, West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya in connection with an NDPS case. He further submits that even mother of the petitioner, namely, Surija Begam Laskar @ Siroza Begam Laskar was also found to be involved in a in offence under NDPS Act. 7. The learned Standing counsel for the DRI has also submitted that after the arrest of the petitioner, the grounds of arrest were stated in the arrest memo, which was prepared at the time of arrest of the petitioner. The said arrest memo has been annexed as Annexure-“C” along with the written objection submitted by the DRI in this case. He submits that the said arrest memo was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar district by the seizing officer on 19.03.2025 wherein a request was made to communicate the same to the family members of the arrestee. Page No.# 4/6 8. The learned standing counsel for the DRI submits that there has been a compliance of the requirements of furnishing grounds of arrest, in writing, to the relatives/family members/nominated person of the arrestee as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 10. As the petitioner is seeking bail in this case also on the ground of violation of his constitutional rights under Article 22(1) Constitution of India. Hence, before considering the case on merits, let us consider as to whether the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are tenable so as to entitle the petitioner to get bail in this case. 11. It appears from the arrest memo, which was prepared on the date of the arrest of the petitioner i.e., 19.03.2025, on which the signatures of the petitioner appears. Though, in the arrest memo there is no specific mention that the same is notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, however, on perusal of the said arrest memo, it appears that it does contain the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the above mentioned case. Therefore, as the signatures of the petitioner appears in the said arrest memo, it can be regarded that there is substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 47 of BNSS as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in as much as furnishing the grounds of arrest, in writing, to the arrestee is concerned in this case. However, in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” (supra), the Apex Court has also observed that there is also a mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India to communicate the grounds of arrest, in writing, to the friends, relatives Page No.# 5/6 or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person at the time of his arrest. 12. In the instant case, on perusal of the case diary, it appears that though there are materials to indicate that the arrest memo of the present petitioner was forwarded by the Seizing Officer to the Superintendent of Police, Cachar forwarding the same to the father of the present petitioner. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said arrest memo has been forwarded to the father of the present petitioner or any of his family members. 13. The learned standing counsel, DRI failed to show anything in the case diary to satisfy this Court that the grounds of arrest were communicated, in writing, to the relatives/friend/nominated person of the arrestee in this case 14. Thus, though there has been compliance of furnishing grounds of arrest, in this case, to the arrestee, however, there is violation of the requirement of communicating said grounds, in writing, to the relatives, friend or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrestee in this case. This Court is of considered opinion that same is in violation of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra). 15. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get bail due to violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is accordingly allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, with following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of DRI Case No. Page No.# 6/6 8/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-25, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar; 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 as well as, 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. 16. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant