Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010157362025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2305/2025 VIRCHAND RAY ALIAS BIRCHANDRA RAY ALIAS VIRCHANDRA RAY S/O RAMBILASH RAY R/O VILL- DADPUR CHAKNOOR, P.S. MUFASIL, DIST. SAMISTIPUR, BIHAR-848130. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU (NCB). Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,MS. A K CHOPHI,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 02.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner namely, Virchand Ray Alias Birchandra Ray Alias Virchandra Ray, Page No.# 2/6 who has been detained behind the bars since 20.02.2024 (for more than 1 year 6 months) in connection with NDPS Case No. 08/2021 corresponding to NCB Crime No. 12/2020, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.02.2021, the Narcotic Control Bureau, represented by one Kausik Sarkar, the Intelligence Officer of one Guwahati Zonal Unit had lodged a complaint was registered as NDPS Case No. 08/2021 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 wherein four accused persons were named, namely, (1) Tarun Kumar, (2) Pramod Ray, (3) Sujit Kumar and (4) Baiju Thakur. 4. It was alleged in the complaint that about 707 kg of suspected ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused No.s 1, 2 and 3 named in the FIR. 5. Later on, a supplementary charge sheet was filed, after about three years, on 16.02.2024, showing the petitioner as an accused, in connection with the same case. 6. The petitioner, at that point of time, was detained in connection with another case, i.e. Muffasil Case No. 536/2023 in the state of Bihar. A prayer was made to show the present petitioner arrested, in connection with NDPS Case No. 08/2021, which was allowed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon and accordingly, on 20.02.2024, the petitioner was shown arrested in the NDPS Case No. 08/2021. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He submits that when the petitioner was detained behind the bars in Page No.# 3/6 connection with Muffasil Case No. 536/2023, and when he was shown arrested in the case NDPS Case No. 08/2021, no grounds of arresting him in the aforesaid case were communicated to him. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that there has been a clear violation of the statutory mandate as provided under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to get bail on that ground only. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that nothing was recovered from the present petitioner in this case, and he has been implicated in the aforesaid case only on the basis of the statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such statement of co-accused are inadmissible as evidence in the NDPS Case No. 08/2021 against the present petitioner, in view of the observation of the Apex Court in the case of “Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu” reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there are eight prosecution witnesses listed in the complaint petition and three of them were already examined before filing of the supplementary charge sheet against the present petitioner. Hence, the witnesses who were already examined in this case would also be required to be called back for the purpose of cross-examination by the present petitioner and thus, there is unlikelihood of culmination of the trial at the earliest. 12. He further submits that from the date of his showing arrested in the aforesaid case, more than one year six month have lapsed and the Page No.# 4/6 trial has not progressed fairly and, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to get bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration. 13. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for NCB, Ms. M. Deka, has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and there are other criminal cases pending against him. She also submits that the petitioner was the intended receiver of the seized contraband and to that effect, there are sufficient incriminating materials on record. 14. She also submits that the call data records (CDR) of the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and other co-accused shows that the petitioner was in constant touch with the other co-accused of the case on various occasions. 15. She also submits that the trial got delayed only because of non- cooperation on the part of the petitioner. She submits that on several occasions, notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 were issued to the petitioner. However, on one or other pretexts, he failed to appear before the officials of NCB, which resulted in delay in culmination of the trial on the said case. 16. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 17. Apart from the fact that since the date of showing the petitioner arrested in the NDPS Case No. 08/2021, more than one year, six months have lapsed, it appears from records that the last witness was examined on 30.11.2023, i.e., even before when the petitioner was shown arrested in this case. 18. Moreover, it is admitted even by learned counsel of NCB that at the time of showing him arrest, no grounds of arrest were communicated Page No.# 5/6 to the petitioner. This, in the considered opinion of this Court is a clear violation of the constitutional mandate as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985, as it is the requirement, both statutory as well as constitutional, that as soon as a person is arrested in connection with a case, he has to be communicated with the grounds of such arrest in writing. 19. 19. However, in the instant case, the same has not been done, therefore, there is infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, and on that count only, the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 20. As the petitioner is found entitled to get bail on the aforesaid grounds, this Court does not intend to discuss the other grounds taken by the petitioner while seeking his bail. 21. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 08/2021, which is pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon; 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 Page No.# 6/6 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, 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. 22. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant