Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010177272025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2597/2025 NAYAN CHANDRA NATH S/O LT. ADHIR CHANDRA NATH RESIDENT OF COLLEGE ROAD, WARD NO. 15, PS DHUBRI, DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783324 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR,MS J A RAHMAN,MS P BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 26.08.2025 1. Heard Mrd. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been field by the petitioner, namely, Nayan Chandra Nath who has been detained behind the bars since 05.02.2024 in connection with Special Case No. 447/2024 arising out of Dhubri P.S. Page No.# 2/4 Case No. 34/2024 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 presently pending before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.02.2024, one Kapil Ch. Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dhubri Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that a large quantity of contraband has been kept in the house of one Nayan Chandra Das (present petitioner). On receipt of the said information, a police team was constituted and it proceeded towards the house of the petitioner. The house of the petitioner was searched in presence of witnesses and during search operation, 30 numbers of cough syrup bottles containing codeine phosphate, 240 numbers of tablets of Pyeevon Spas Plus Capsules containing tramadol and 140 numbers of tablets containing Nitrazepam were recovered therefrom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars since 05.02.2024 and till date only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. He submits that at the time of the arrest of the petitioner though notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. was served on him, however, it did not contain any grounds of arrest therein. He submits that it only contains the police station case number and the penal provisions involved in the case and no basic facts were mentioned therein. He also submits that there has been a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory requirement under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. He submits that on that count only the petitioner is entitled to get bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799”. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that though the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner, it does not contain the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner in this case. 6. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra), the non-compliance of the requirement under Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of an accused and such an arrestee would be entitled to get bail on that count only. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned copy of the case record of Special Case No. 447/2024. 8. Since, apparently on perusal of the notice served on the petitioner under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that it is devoid of any grounds of arrest and no basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the aforesaid has been mentioned therein, mere serving a copy of notice under Section 50 of the petitioner without mentioning therein grounds of arrest is a clear violation of the constitutional mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 9. Therefore, in view of the above observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra), the petitioner is entitled to get bail on that count only. 10. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special Case No. 447/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; Page No.# 4/4 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 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 v. 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; 11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant