Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010180792024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2661/2024 SAHIDUL ALOM S/O SAHAB UDDIN, R/O VILL- BANAIRGOOL, P.O.-KALIGANJ, P.S AND DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 08.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner as well as Ms. N. Das, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. By filing this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner, namely, Sahidul Alom, has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.61/2023 pending before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj arising out of Badarpur PS Case No. 148/2023 under Sections Page No.# 2/5 22(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act. 3. As per FIR, on receipt of the information regarding trafficking of narcotic drugs in Maslay area, the police went to the spot and found the petitioner in front the house of one Rushtana Begum and apprehended him. During interrogation, it has come to the knowledge that he brought Yaba tablets from the house of Rushtana Begum and the petitioner led the informant to her house. During search, around 1215 numbers of Yaba tablets weighing 130 grams were recovered. Accordingly, said contraband was seized and the petitioner was arrested. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one year. Though charge was framed on 30.01.2024, however, out of twelve witnesses only one witness is examined till date. 5. Another point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a bare perusal of arrest memo as well as notice under Section 50 of Cr.P.C., it is very much evident that no ground of arrest was ever communicated to the petitioner. It is further added that Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that whenever a person is arrested in connection with an offence, he should be furnished with the grounds of his arrest in writing at the earliest. But in the present case, the record reveals that no such ground was furnished to him causing his arrest which is mandatory in nature. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of his submission learned counsel has relied on the following case law: Page No.# 3/5 (a) Pravir Kr. Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 6. In response, learned Additional PP has submitted that the matter relates to recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs. As such Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play. However, learned Additional PP has admitted that in Section 50 notice as well as in arrestee memo the grounds of arrest have not been reflected. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the scanned copy of the trial court record, it reveals that though charge was framed more than one year back i.e. on 30.01.2024, however, only one witness was examined by the trial court. Order sheet of the trial court record shows that no such initiative was taken by the trial court to dispose of the matter early by examining the witnesses in day to day manner. 8. It also appears from the arrest memo issued to the petitioner in connection with Badarpur PS Case No. 148/2023 as well as notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned which is mandatory in nature. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex court has held as follows: “…….any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offences, has a fundamental and the statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and the copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.” Page No.# 4/5 In another case vide Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana and another reported in (2025) SCC online SC 269, it was held that : “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as per the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as may be the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. 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 Article 22(1) and Article 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.” 9. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, as it appears in the instant case that there is no indication in the arrest memo or the notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. that the accused petitioner was being informed about the grounds of his arrest. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj). The direction for bail is further subject to the following conditions that the accused-petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi Page No.# 5/5 (Karimganj) without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial; and (c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. 11. 11. It is made clear that the findings of this Court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the case. 12. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant