Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010261162024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3782/2024 MEGHAN PASWAN AND ANR S/O DHAMAUL PASWAN, R/O VILL- NONIYA TOLA, DDHAPUR, P.O. AND P.S. BIBHUTIPUR, DIST. SAMASTIPUR, BIHAR. 2: DHARMENDAR PASWAN S/O RAMVRIKSH PASWAN R/O VILL-NEW DHANESPUR UTTAR P.O. AND P.S. VIDHYAPATI NAGAR DIST. SAMASTIPUR BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is the third bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, the Page No.# 2/5 petitioners, namely, Meghan Paswan and Dharmendar Paswan have sought for bail in connection with Special (Nar) Case No. 50 (BGN)/2024 (arising out of Bongaigaon GRPS Case No.12/2024) under section 22(b)(ii)C/29 of the NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the third bail application filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Earlier two bail applications vide BA No. 1204/2024 dated 17.05.2024 and BA No.2187/2024 dated 29.08.2024 were rejected by this Court. However, this time the petitioners prayed for bail on some new grounds that at the time of arrest of the petitioners on 11.02.2024 when notice was served to the petitioners u/s 50 Cr.P.C., the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners which violates their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which resulted the arrest of the petitioners as illegal and therefore, they should no longer be retained in custody and be released on bail for the interest of justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following case laws – (1) (2024) 7 SCC 576 (Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and others). (2) (2024) 8 SCC 254 (Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi). (3) 2025 SCC online SC 269 (Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana and another) (4) BA No. 403/2025 (Abu Bakkar vs the State of Assam). (5) BA No. 142/2025 (Abul Khayer Md Siddique vs The Page No.# 3/5 State of Assam). (6) BA No. 1017/2025 (Noman uddin vs the State of Assam). 4. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioners u/s 50 Cr.PC as well as arrest memo does not show any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioners. 6. 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. 7. 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 Page No.# 4/5 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. 8. 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.” 9. 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 is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioners that the accused petitioners were informed about the grounds of their arrest in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS Case No.12/2024. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is Page No.# 5/5 inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties each 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, Bongaigaon. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, 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 case; 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. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant