Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010280002024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./110/2025 JIAUL HOQUE @ JIYAUL HAQUE S/O MOSHEN ALI @ MAHSIN ALI R/O W/NO 01, P.S. RANGIA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S KAUR, L BANIK,N NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND 08/05/2025 Heard Ms. L Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Jiaul Hoque @ Jiyaul Haque, who has filed this application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, with prayer for bail, as he is behind the bar since 05.06.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 37/2023 arising out of Rangia P.S. Case No. 323/2023 under Sections 17(c)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS Act. Page No.# 2/3 2. Heard Mr. K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s right to liberty has been curtailed as the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned to him at the time of his arrest. Notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. was also not issued to the petitioner. The arrest memo is marked as Annexure-4 of the petition which clearly reveals that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, wherein it has been held and observed that – “31. The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated information given regarding the appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely uncalled for. All Courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other. When a violation of Article 22 (1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised : (a) that the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention is concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the Court that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.” 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has raised serious objection stating that the charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner in connection with transportation of 3.5 kgs. of opium and that the petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence. Page No.# 3/3 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection and I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar’s case (Supra). 7. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar’s case, it appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner is thereby enlarged on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that – (i) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of the trial; and (ii) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 9. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 10. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant