Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010174562025 2025:GAU-AS:11953 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2573/2025 RANJEET CHAURASIYA AND ANR S/O KAILASH CHAUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANCHANPUR, RAJASAN, PS BIDUPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI, BIHAR, PIN 844102 2: ALI HUSSAIN S/O NUR MOHAMMAD SK. RESIDENT OF JHAUKUTI PS BOXIRHAT DISTRICT COOCH BEHAR WEST BENGAL PIN 73615 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. Sanu Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Kuldeep Baishya, learned Addl. Public 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 Ranjeet Chaurasiya and Ali Hussain in connection with Special/144/2025 arising out of Golokganj Police Station Case No. 120/2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(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 16.05.2025 complainant SI(UB) Hirak Jyoti Das of Chagolia O.P. under Golakganj P.S, Dist-Dhubri lodged an FIR at Golakganj PS stating that on 16/05/2025, at 8:15 AM, a reliable information was received from a source over telephone that a large quantity of suspected cannabis Ganja were being transported from Guwahati side in a 10 wheeler truck bearing regd. No.- UP 83T 2021 concealed inside of the vehicle. Accordingly, telephonic information was immediately sent to Superintendent of Police, Dhubri and complainant along with police staff conducted Naka Checking duty at Chagolia Naka point, near Shiv mandir. During naka checking, all the vehicles coming from Guwahati side were thoroughly checked. On 16-05-2025 at about 9 AM, one 10 Page No.# 3/8 wheeler truck bearing regd. No. UP 83T 2021 which was coming from Guwahati side towards West Bengal was signaled to stop and the vehicle stopped at Naka point. Upon thorough search of the truck, 13 (thirteen) packets of suspected Cannabis Ganja were found concealed in secret chamber of the said truck. The vehicle bearing Regd No UP 83T 2021 and the driver's name Ranjeet Chaurasiya, 37 yrs, S/o- Kailash Chaudhary of Kanchanpur, PO- Rajasan, PS- Bidupur, Dist- Vaishali, State- Bihar and the handyman 2) Ali Hussain, 25 yrs, S/o- Nur Mohammad Sk, R/o- Jhaukuti, PS-Boxirhat, Dist-Cooch Behar, WB has been detained by the complainant with the help of staff and they revealed during spot interrogation that they carried the identical Cannabis Ganja from Agartala, Tripura towards Bihar. The suspected Cannabis Ganja have been weighed by using digital weight machine and total weight found as 159.586 Kg which were seized as per seizure memo following due procedures of law in presence of witnesses. After completion of all the formalities the Police party departed from the PO at 11:10 AM to Chagolia OP along with the seized items and with the apprehended persons. Hence the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Investigating Agency did not inform the "ground of arrest" to the petitioners’ family thereby violating the fundamental right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Investigating Agency has also infringed the provisions laid down under Section 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has clearly observed in Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana and Another (2025 SCC Online SC 269) that- Page No.# 4/8 "21. …….. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused...." 5. A perusal of the record would show that notices under Section 47 BNSS were duly served upon the arrested/accused persons. However, with regard to the notice under Section 48 BNSS regarding information to the family members or relatives of the friends of the arrestees, it appears that the O.C, Golokganj PS, Dhubri, Assam had sent WT Message to the SHO, Bidupur PS, District-Vaishali, Bihar/ Boxirhat PS, District-Cooch Behar, WB dated 17.05.2025, with a request to inform the relatives of the arrested/accused persons who were arrested in connection with Golokganj Police Station Case No. 120/2025 under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. 6. It is apparent that the grounds of arrest were not included in the aforesaid WT Message and there is no information in the form of any reply, WT Message etc., as to whether the said information was furnished to the relatives etc., of the arrested/accused persons. 7. 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 Page No.# 5/8 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 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.” 8. 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. 9. 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 Page No.# 6/8 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, 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.” 10. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate in Crl.A. No. 234/2025 has held that there appears to be a dichotomy of views in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan (supra) and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State Page No.# 7/8 of Haryana & Anr(supra) and referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, has held that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, i.e., Vihaan Kumar (supra) would have to be followed. 11. A perusal of the Magistrate’s order sheet would show that both the accused persons where produced on 17.05.2025 and it is reflected in the order passed by the Magistrate on that date that on being asked, the accused namely Ranjeet Chaurasiya stated that he is unable to engaged counsel to represent him, and accordingly, the Assistant LADC was engaged to represent the said accused, whereas the accused namely Ali Hussain stated that he has already engaged counsel to represent him. It is not discernable whether any counsel or LADC actually represented the accused persons on that day. However, no application for bail was filed on behalf of the accused, and as revealed by the Magistrate’s Court, none was filed up till the time of preferring the instant petition before this Court. 12. The above goes to show that at no point of time after the arrest of the petitioner on 16.05.2025 till submission of the charge-sheet, was the accused furnished with the grounds of arrest. The fact that a Legal Aid Counsel/Private Counsel was engaged is not sufficient to show that the accused was in a position to oppose the prayer for remand either on the first date or any other subsequent dates, more Page No.# 8/8 so, as no bail application was submitted on behalf of the accused during this entire period as indicated above. Therefore, the prejudice caused to the accused is demonstratable or self evident. Therefore, even keeping aside the question of dichotomy between the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Sri Darshan (supra), by any standard, it must be held 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. 13. Consequently, the bail application stands allowed. 14. 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