Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010156462025 2025:GAU-AS:10999 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2319/2025 CHANDAN KUMAR PASWAN S/O- SRI GANOUR PASWAN. R/O- VILL.- BAZIPUR SADAR, P.S.- BIDUPUR, DIST.- BAISALI, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR. T HUSSAIN,B AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 19.08.2025 Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application by which the petitioner has prayed for releasing him on Page No.# 2/5 bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 44/2024 corresponding to GRPS Case No. 135/2023 registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR dated 09.08.2023 lodged by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the GRPS, Gitanagar reveals that during the joint checking against illegal carrying of contraband at Kamakhya Station platform, it was found that while checking the train No. 15658, 4 numbers of handbags containing two packets, each suspected to be ganja was found, carried by two (2) unknown persons, who were sitting in a general coach. It is further stated that during checking, both the person tried to flee but somehow they were detained. Thereafter, both the persons along with 4 bags containing 8 packets wrapped with plastic tape suspected to be ganja were unloaded from the train on the said platform. On receiptof of the said Ejahar, the police registered the case under the aforesaid Sections. Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of arrest under Section 50 and 50A of the Cr.PC corresponding to Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS were not served upon the petitioner. He has placed a notice under Section 50 Cr.PC issued to the petitioner which he states does not consist of the grounds of arrest. Mr. N.J. Dutta has further made a submission that Section 36 of the BNSS corresponding to Section 41 of Cr.PC was not followed inasmuch, as there was no Page No.# 3/5 signature of the witnesses in the Arrest Memo, which is mandated under the said Section. Mr. B. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly submits that on perusal of the Trial Court Records it was found that the Grounds of Arrest as mandated under Section 50 and 50A Cr.PC corresponding to Section 47 & 48 of BNSS were not served upon the petitioner. Heard the counsels and I have perused the records. It is no res integra that Grounds of Arrest containing full details of the case necessitating the arrest of accused along with date of arrest and the case under which the petitioner is arrested has to be furnished under Section 47 of the BNSS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 had observed that a written grounds of arrest should be furnished to the accused person as a matter of course and without exception and non furnishing of the same would be violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS. It was also observed that reading out orally the grounds of arrest would not serve the purpose of the said provisions. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2025 SC 1388 had observed that the grounds of arrest has to be informed to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the Page No.# 4/5 basic case constituting the grounds are imparted and communicated and in the language that he understands and non compliance of the said requirement would be in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the same would vitiate the arrest of the accused and the accused needs to be released forthwith. In yet another decision passed by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashtha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, it was observed that requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or person placed under the preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. In the said decision, it is also observed that there is difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest. Reasons of arrest includes the information regarding proper investigation with the case, to prevent the accused person from causing evidence to disappear or to prevent the accused from committing further offence etc. Grounds of arrest would be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested which would include the details of the offence under which the petitioner is arrested. In view of the said settled position, it is noticed in the present application that the same was not followed inasmuch as no details regarding the offence under which the petitioner was arrested was communicated to him. In view of such violation, it is provided that the arrest is vitiated and the petitioner has to be Page No.# 5/5 released forthwith. Accordingly, the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court under the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged. (2) The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial. (3) The Trial Court may impose further conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. It is further provided that on breach of the said bail conditions, the jurisdictional court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. With the above observations and directions, the petition is disposed of. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant