Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010262152024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3787/2024 WAHENGBAM ROBITA DEVI AND ANR W/O DEEPAK SINGH R/O WAHENGBAM LEIKAI LAIREMBI MANING P.S. IMPHAL WEST, DIST. IMPHAL, MANIPUR. 2: DEEPAK SINGH @ WAHENGBAM DEEPAK SINGH R/O WAHENGBAM LEIKAI LAIREMBI MANING P.S. IMPHAL WEST DIST. IMPHAL MANIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 01-05-2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. A.Ahmed for the petitioners 1.Wahengbam Robita Devi and 2. Deepak Singh @ Wahengbam Deepak Singh, who have filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 10.02.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 85/2023 arising out of Garchuk Police Station Case No. 35/2023 under Section 21 (c)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are behind bars since 10.02.2023. Trial has been procrastinated. Due to prolonged incarceration, their right has been curtailed and grounds of arrest were also not communicated to both the petitioners. It is further submitted that the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has filed an objection but they have not negated that grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners. Thus, the objection filed by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is to be dismissed. It is further submitted that there are seven enlisted witnesses in the charge sheet and only two witnesses have been examined so far. It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. 3. I have scrutinized the trial court records. 4. The FIR unfolds that on a tip of regarding carrying of huge quantity of contraband from Meghalaya, a search operation was conducted but after reaching the place of occurrence, the investigating team found that the miscreants disappeared and took alternative direction and proceeded towards Azara side on their private car bearing registration No.ML-04-D-2599 and the Page No.# 3/5 Officer-in-charge was apprised of the incident. After a while, the investigation team received an information that the miscreants took shelter in a rented house at Gorol, New Air Port Road, Azara. This time, when the investigating team reached the place of occurrence i.e. the house of one Saru Boruah (House owner), they found two women inside the house along with Saru Boruah. On being confronted, the miscreants tried to give misleading answers. A thorough search was conducted in the rented house. Petitioner No. 2 was arrested in connection with this case and 237 grams of raw heroin and 843 grams of brown sugar was found. 5. I have scrutinized the petition. Annexure-A of the petition at page Nos. 34, 35, No.39 and 40 are the notices to the arrestee and the arrest memos. 6. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha –vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein it has been held that : “45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. * * * * * * * * * * * * 48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper Page No.# 4/5 investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 7. It is true that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners in the manner understood by the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are entitled to bail due to lack of communication of the grounds of arrest and as such, the petitioners are enlarged on bail. 8. The petitioners named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- ( One Lac) each with 02(two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall not jump bail, ii) The petitioners shall refrain from such activities of which they are alleged, iii) The petitioners shall not exercise threat(s) to the witness or try to influence them. 9. On breach of any of the above conditions, learned trial court is at liberty to Page No.# 5/5 cancel bail granted to the petitioners immediately. 10. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant