Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010172642025 2025:GAU-AS:11847 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2530/2025 ARJINA KHATUN AND ANR W/O SHAHAJALAL SK. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIYARKUTI, PS GAURIPUR, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783323 2: SHAHAJALAL SK S/O MAHAD ALI SK. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIYARKUTI PS GAURIPUR DIST DHUBRI ASSAM PIN 78332 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K THAKUR, MS P BARMAN,MR. SANU HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 02.09.2025 Heard Mr. Sanu Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Page No.# 2/7 Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in respect of the accused/petitioners namely Arjina Khatun and Shahajalal SK in connection with Special/573/2024 arising out of Golokganj Police Station Case No. 149/2024 under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act pending before the Learned Special Judge cum District and Sessions, Dhubri. 3. The facts leading to the present case is that on 24/06/2024 complainant SI Aminul Haque lodged an FIR at Golakganj PS stating that on 24/06/2024 at 03.30 pm, a reliable information was received from a source that a M/cycle bearing Reg. no AS-05-L-9939 was carrying suspected drugs from West Bengal side to Gauripur, Dhubri. Accordingly, a GDE was made vide GDE no 12 dated-was directed to do search 24/06/2024 and the complainant operation. Accordingly, O/C Golakganj constituted a team headed by SI Aminul Haque with other police staff. Then the police party headed by St Aminul Haque proceeded to North Raipur Pt-01,NH-17 near Railway Crossing Gate for NAKA checking. During NAKA checking, at about 03:45 pm a M/Cycle bearing Reg. no AS-05-L-9939 was found coming from West Bengal side and it was signaled to stop. The M/cycle was ridden by one male person accompanied by a female pillion rider. Suspecting the M/Cycle, SI Aminul Haque immediately approached three nearby person namely Mofidur Rahman, Abul Hussain Sk and Mohidur Rahman and they were explained about the situation. They also agreed to be witness on their Page No.# 3/7 own. On thorough search of the M/Cycle in the presence of independent witnesses, one bag was found in the backside of the M/cycle. On checking the bag carried in the M/Cycle bunch of Pyeevon Spas plus capsules were found inside the bag. The two person sitting in the M/Cycle were identified as Shahjalal Sk (rider) and Arjina Khatun (pillion rider). They were interrogated and detained and later brought to Golakganj PS. All the items recovered from them were packed and sealed on the spot in the presence of the three independent witnesses. The following items were seized as per seizure list- 1. Total 6560 no's (820 strips) of Pyeevon Spas Plus capsules (8 capsules per strip, 8*820-6560 no's) Batch No OYEC-075.MFG-03/2024, Exp-02/2026, MRP-72.00 Rs, per strip, Total weight-4,067.2 gram(one capsule-0.62*6560 no's of capsule) 2. One TVS Apache motor cycle with R/N-AS05L9939 3. One black colored NOKIA mobile handset bearing IMΕΙ- 354182105607855/852 with SIM card no 7099632219 4. One Nylon carry bag green and light yellow colour. After completion of all the formalities, the police party departed from the PO at 4:35 PM to PS with seized items and the two apprehended person. The seized items were handed over to Sheristadar, Golakganj PS and a Malkhana receipt was received. Later an FIR was lodged by SI Aminul Haque and a case was registered vide Golakiganj PS case no 149/24 U/S-22(C) NDPS Act against the two accused person. Hence Page No.# 4/7 the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the arrested accused persons as required under Section 50 Cr.PC, nor to their family members under Section 50A Cr.PC, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the notices served to the accused persons and their relatives under Section 50 Cr.PC and 50A Cr.PC respectively do not contain any grounds of arrest. 6. Hence, keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 7. A perusal of the record would show that the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners are correct inasmuch as no grounds of arrest have been shown in the said notices under Section 50 Cr.PC and Section 50A Cr.PC. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) held : “30. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and Page No.# 5/7 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 31. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others, laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected.” 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702, wherein it has been held that mere non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest would not be ipso facto vitiate the arrest and the test of prejudice is required to be applied. 10. It has been held in the State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan (supra) as follows:- “ 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, Page No.# 6/7 in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23 , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally (2024) 7 SCC 576 represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” 11. A perusal of the Magistrate’s order sheet would show that both the accused persons produced on 25.06.2024, and it is stated in the said order that the accused persons were asked whether they need Legal Aid Counsel, but they stated that they shall engage counsel on their own. Therefore, it is apparent that they were not represented by any counsel on the date of production and no application for bail was filed on their behalf on that day or any subsequent dates either and subsequently, charges were framed on 17.12.2024. Page No.# 7/7 12. From the above, it is apparent that the accused or their family members could not get apprised about the grounds of arrest in any other manner which would have enabled them to oppose the prayer for remand on the first as well as subsequent dates. 13. From the above, it is clear that prejudice was caused to the accused which is demonstratable. 14. From the material on record discussed above including the notices under Section 50 Cr.PC and 50A Cr.PC as well as the Magistrate’s records, it is apparent that there was total non-compliance with the requirements of Section 50 Cr.PC and consequently Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, thereby vitiating the arrest of the accused, having regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above. 15. Consequently, the bail application stands allowed. 16. The accused abovenamed shall be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with 2 sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Dhubri. One of the sureties must be a Govt. Servant. Bail is granted on the condition that the accused shall regularly participate in the trial and shall not attempt to influence the witnesses. JUDGE Comparing Assistant