Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010239742024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3464/2024 HUSSAIN AHMED S/O FAKARUDDIN TAPADAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ALAM KHANI, PO NEELAM BAZAR, PS NEELAM BAZAAR, DIST KARIMGANJ, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this second bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Hussain Ahmed, has prayed for bail in connection with Special(NDPS) Case No. 47(NL)/2024(arising out of North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024) under Page No.# 2/5 Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.06.2024 at around 10 p.m., an information was received from a reliable source that a Maruti Suzuki Swift vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-07-BM-6450 was traveling from Hojai to North Lakhimpur, carrying a large quantity of heroin. Thereafter, the complainant along with other police personnel, proceeded to North Lakhimpur Town to locate the said vehicle. The vehicle was intercepted in front of Chauldhowa Outpost, and the occupants were detained. During search, 25 packets (soap case box) heroin weighing 291.69 grams was recovered and seized accordingly. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last eleven months since his arrest on 08.06.2024. It is also submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been laid. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no any contraband has been seized from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner. Moreover, the mandatory provision of law as regards search, seizure and arrest of an accused person under the NDPS Act has not been complied with and also no compliance of section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act by the investigating agency. It is further submitted that the alleged contraband was recovered from the possession of one of the co-accused, namely, Johorlal Morang. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, notice was served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. Page No.# 3/5 wherein grounds of arrest has not been shown which is clear violation of the provisions of law. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case law – a) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269. 7. Per contra, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. As the commercial quantity of contraband items are involved in the instant case as such, the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into play. Hence, the Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed in granting bail to the petitioner. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo show that no grounds of arrest has been mentioned at the time of arrest of the petitioner. 9. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, reported in (2023) SCC Online (SC) 1244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. If the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. Consequently, the arrest and the subsequent remand of the arrested person cannot be sustained. Page No.# 4/5 10. In another case vide Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA (P) Act or for that matter any other offences. The accused has fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a 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 and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 11. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 12. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there Page No.# 5/5 is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.152/2024. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 47(NL)/2024 (arising out of North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024) under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, Assam 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. 14. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant