Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030001892025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./11/2025 Parul Hussain Ahmed Cachar, Assam VERSUS Union of India through the Narcotics Control Bureau, Agartala Zonal Unit Agartala Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana, Spl. P.P, NCB B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 25.04.2025 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor, NCB, for the respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483BNSS read with Section 37 of ND&PS Act, 1985, for the release of the accused/appellant on bail in connection with Criminal Trial No. 157of 2024[SR (P) No. 28 of 2024], arising out of NCB Crime No. 08 of 2023 (Special Narcotics Police Station, Aizawl Case No. 30 of Page No.# 2/8 2023). 3. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner, who was arrested on 24.09.2024, on allegation of his involvement in the seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin from 20 nos. of plastic suitcases concealed inside black polythene bags from inside the driver cabin of the truck bearing registration no. AS 11DC 5863 at Seling, Aizawl District, Mizoram. The possessor of the said heroin was the truck driver/co-accused Abdul Mazid Laskar, who was arrested on 02.05.2023 on being charged u/s 21 (c)/25 of the ND&PS Act in Special Narcotics Police Station, Aizawl, Case No. 30/2023. 4. The accused/petitioner was suspected to be involved in the seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin in light of the interrogation of the co-accused after the charge- sheet was filed against the co-accused wherein, the accused/petitioner was arrested and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him u/s 8(c) r/w Section 21(c), 25,29,35,53(A),54,60,66,68, 69 &77of the ND&PS Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner has been wrongly arrested on 24.09.2024 after almost 1 (one) year from the date of seizure of the heroin on 25.05.2023. She submitted that the accused/petitioner had no involvement in the instant case and the only grounds for his arrest was that he had send Rs. 8000/- from his account to the bank account of the co- accused and also because a number of phone calls between the co-accused and the accused/petitioner were said to be made around the time of the seizure of the seized contraband substance. The learned counsel submitted that the phone calls between the co-accused Abdul Majid Laskar and the present petitioner supposedly made through the mobile no.8798984829, which was not registered Page No.# 3/8 against the name of the present petitioner. She submitted that there is no proof to show that the phone calls were between the co-accused and the present petitioner since no mobile phone has been seized from the petitioner, and no sim card seized. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, there was gross violation of Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution along with Section 48 of the BNSS. She submitted that the accused/petitioner was not informed of his ground of arrest nor was the copy of the arrest memo furnished to the accused/petitioner or to any of his next in kin. She submitted that the violation of the fundamental rights of the accused/petitioner under Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution vitiates the whole trial against the accused/petitioner and therefore he should be released on bail at this stage. The learned cousnel has relied on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Case No. Bail Appln. No. 28 of 2023 dated 08.08.2023 in Shri Lalbiakkima Vs. State of Mizoram and the judgment passed in Bail Appln. No. 643 of 2025 dated 26.03.2025 in Joynal Hussen and Anr. Vs. State of Assam Represented by the PP Assam, paras 11 & 12, and in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 162. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was a gross violation of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act since no grounds of belief was recorded by the Officer concerned even though the information regarding the alleged involvement of the accused/petitioner was received beforehand. She submitted that the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act vitiates the trial and therefore, the accused/petitioner is entitled Page No.# 4/8 to be released on bail. In support of her submission, she has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashtha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 INSC 414, paras 21, 22, 25, 44, 49 & 50. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in terms of Section 35 of the ND&PS Act, the culpable mental state of the accused that he had no mental state with respect to the alleged charge made against him is not proved and there is no intention or any reason to believe that the accused/appellant was at fault in the seizure of the said 2.553 kgs of heroin. In support of her submission, she has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in Gangadhar @ Gangaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2020 SC 3635. 8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor, NCB on the other hand, submitted that the circumstances under which the accused/appellant was arrested clearly show that there was no violation of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. He submitted that, from the supplementary complaint filed against the accused/appellant, it is clear that, on receiving the information of the involvement of the accused/appellant with the seizure of 2.553 kg of heroin, which was ascertained after analysis of CAF and CDR of the mobile numbers, summons were issued to the accused/appellant. However, since he did not appear before the NCB, the NCB Guwahati Team had raided his house but the accused/appellant had managed to escape. The ND&PS Court had also issued warrants of arrest dated 30.01.2024 and 15.05.2024 against the accused/appellant. However, the petitioner did not appear before the ND&PS Court, but had applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected vide the Order of this Court dated 25.07.2024. Thereafter, the accused/appellant had Page No.# 5/8 surrendered before the ND&PS Court on 18.09.2024, wherein, the Court had detained and sent him to Central Jail after giving direction to file a supplementary complaint within 30 days. Further in the statement of the accused/appellant, which was recorded under Section 180 BNSS at Central Jail, he had confessed his involvement in trafficking the seized 2.553 kgs of heroin, thus a prima facie case was found against him, and he was formally arrested on 24.09.2024 at 17:00 hours under Section 8(c) and liable for punishment under Sections 21(c), 25 & 29 of the ND&PS Act. Thereafter, the grounds of arrest was informed to him. The learned Special Public Prosecutor thus submitted that since he was formally arrested while he was already under judicial custody, there is no violation of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. 9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that there was also no violation of Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution, Section No. 48 of the BNSS Act, since he was fully informed of the reason of his arrest, which he already knew when he had filed his anticipatory bail application before this Court, which was duly rejected. The transfer of money from the bank account of the accused/appellant to the co-accused Abdul Mazid Laskar also clearly proved that he had made prepayment for the seized articles. 10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the twin conditions under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act to grant bail to the accused/appellant has not been made out. He submitted that the accused/appellant has failed to satisfy that he is not guilty of the offence under Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act nor has he shown that he is not likely to commit a similar offence if he was granted bail. In support of his submission, he has cited Union of India Vs Rattan Mallik, reported in (2007)7SCC 798, Page No.# 6/8 paras 5, 6 & 7,andUnion of India Vs Niyazuddin SK., reported in (2009) 2SCC 624, paras 11 & 12. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and I have also perused the documents available on record. 12. It is seen from the facts narrated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB and from the supplementary complain sheet, that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in the recovery of 2.553 kgs of heroin on 02.05.2023, which was seized from the posession of the co-accused Abdul Mazid Laskar, who is alleged to have made several phone calls to the petitioner vide the Mobile No. 8798984829 and as per the charge sheet, Rs. 8,000/- was transferred by the petitioner into the account of the co-accused. The records also show that standing warrants of arrest were issued by the Special Court, ND&PS Act on 30.01.2024 and on 15.05.2024, however, the petitioner instead of appearing before the Court had filed the anticipatory bail application, which was rejected by this Court. Thereafter, petitioner had surrendered himself before the learned Trial Court on 18.09.2024, and accordingly, detained in the Central Jail, wherein, he was then formally arrested on 24.09.2024, under Section 8(c) ND&PS Act, being charged under Section 21 (c), 25 & 29 of the ND&PS Act. 13. From the above facts and on the perusal of the Arrest Memo, it is seen that the grounds for his arrest is clearly mentioned in his Arrest Memo dated 24.09.2024, wherein, it is stated that he was arrested in connection with the recovery and seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin, which was seized on 02.05.2023. The memorandum of arrest is addressed to the petitioner while the petitioner was already in custody in the Central Jail. It is also seen that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that he was suspected in connection with the seizure of Page No.# 7/8 2.553 kgs of heroin, as can be seen in the application made by him for anticipatory bail. Thus, this Court finds that there is no violation of Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution along with Section 48 of the BNSS at the time of his formal arrest, considering that he was already remanded in Central Jail, on his voluntary surrender. This Court considering the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner is arrested, finds that the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner for alleged violation of Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India is not applicable in the instant case. 14. This Court also finds that the peculiar circumstances under which the petitioner was arrested under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, as mentioned in the Memorandum of Arrest dated 24.09.2024, wherein the requirement for recording his grounds of belief under the proviso of Section 42, may not be mandatorily applicable in the instant case, since he was already arrested and kept under judicial custody. In the instant case, since the petitioner was already detained on his surrender, it cannot be said that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. 15. On the perusal of the supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner and also from the circumstances under which the petitioner was formally arrested, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court that prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of being involved in the seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin on 02.05.2023, from the Driver cabin of the truck bearing Registration No. AS 11DC 5863 at Seling, Aizawl District, Mizoram. The evidence prima facie points towards a connection of the petitioner with the co-accused Abdul Mazid Laskar, who was arrested on 02.05.2023 for possessing 2.553 kgs of herion. Page No.# 8/8 16. Thus, in view of the above observations and considering the seriousness of the offence, which involved the seizure of huge quantity of heroin of 2.553 kgs, this Court finds no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, especially considering the fact that the trial is at the stage of recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, wherein, it appears that at the time of filing the bail application, 3 nos. of prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 11 nos. of cited prosecution witnesses. Therefore, it appears that the trial of the case is likely to be completed soon. This Court find it appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the case in the interest of equity and justice. 16. Accordingly, Bail Appl. No. 11 of 2025 stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant