Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030007372024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./82/2024 Abdul Hannan Laskar and 2 Ors. Son of Monir Uddin Laskar, residen to Village-Kachudaram Pt.IV,Hathikhal F.V.,District Cachar,Assam 2: Ahmed Hussain Barbhuiya 3: Abdul Salam Laska VERSUS Union of India Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Subedi Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng ORDER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent Union of India. 2. This is a bail application filed by the 3 petitioners, who were arrested on 12.08.2024, in connection with the seizure of 3696 grams (net weight) of heroin Page No.# 2/4 valued at Rs. 25,87,20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crore Eighty Seven Lakhs Twenty Thousand) only. The heroin had been recovered from a Tata Xenon bearing Registration No. MZ-01F-1845 coming from Churachandpur, Manipur and heading towards Silchar, Assam. The said vehicle was being followed by a black Mahindra Scorpio bearing Registration No. AS-01BJ-8894. The petitioners herein were sitting in the black Mahindra Scorpio, while the 2 co-accused namely Sh. S. Khaigoumang Mate and Sh. H.L. Shonkhongam Mate were in the Tata Xenon. The heroin was recovered from a secret compartment/cavity of the Tata Xenon, which was opened by the petitioner No. 2, who was sitting in the Black Mahindra Scorpio. The heroin was packed in 308 soap cases, which were concealed inside a specially designed cavity in the Tata Xenon. 3. The petitioners’ counsel submits that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, a person arrested on the allegation of having committed an offence, has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of his arrest in writing. Further, a copy of such written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception, at the earliest. He submits that when there has been a violation of the above, which is reflected in Article 22 (1) of the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused person. 4. He also submits that in terms of the above Judgments, the mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the case, would not validate the illegality and unconstitutionality committed by the Enforcement Agency at the time of Page No.# 3/4 arresting the accused person and the grant of initial Police custody. He submits that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest” and unless the “grounds of arrest” are informed to the arrested accused, the Court will have to grant bail to the accused, as the same would be in violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution. 5. He also submits that the relatives of the accused persons were to be informed of the arrest of the petitioners, in terms of Section 48 of the BNSS. However, the same was not done. He accordingly submits that as the grounds of arrest has not been informed to the petitioners at the time of their arrest, the petitioners should be released on bail. 6. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the grounds of arrest have been informed to the petitioners at the time of their arrest in writing and that bail cannot be granted, unless the twin conditions provided under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are fulfilled. In this respect, he has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 798. 7. He also submits that the petitioners were escorting the Tata Xenon and they had all admitted in their voluntary statement made before the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officers, that they were transporting the contraband to earn some money. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed and the status of the criminal proceedings is in the evidence stage. He also submits that the petitioners have never approached the learned Trial Court with a bail application till date and that they should be directed to approach the learned Trial Court first. Page No.# 4/4 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. On considering the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted by the respondents and that case is at a trial stage, the petitioners should approach the learned Trial Court first. The reason being that the petitioners have never approached the learned Trial Court for bail, prior to filing the present bail application. Thus, without deciding the issues raised by the petitioners in this bail application, this bail application is disposed of, without deciding the case on merits, as the petitioners have not approached the learned Trial Court before approaching this Court. 10. The bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant