Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020005902025 2025:GAU-NL:476 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./17/2025 SMTI. MANDEEP KAUR W/O SHRI DHARAM SINGH, R/O KOTHE SHER JANG, JAGRAON, LUDHIANA-142026, PUNJAB VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, KEVISERIENUO,YUKHAKOKLA,MAONGKALA,NOCKLEI M KONYAK,WAPANGLEMLA,KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 19/09/2025 Heard learned counsel, Mr. Sentiyanger for the petitioner, who is the wife of the accused Shri. Dharam Singh who has been arrested on 23.05.2025 in connection with Sechu Zubza PS Case No. 03/2025 under Page No.# 2/5 Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act. 2. This bail application has been filed on the following grounds:- i) The seizure and arrest of the applicant/accused was carried out by UBC Peter Penglang, a constable, who is admittedly not an officer empowered under the NDPS act to make seizure and arrest. It is stated that the legal position is well established that only officers duly empowered under the act are authorised to exercise power under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act. ii) The second ground taken by the petitioner is that the accused was allegedly informed after the ground of arrest but he was unable to comprehend the same, as the communication was not made in a language known to him. Neither English nor the local dialects are known to the accused person and it is a well-settled principle of law and a fundamental constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, that the grounds of arrest must be conveyed clearly and effectively in a language understood by the arrested person. The learned counsel has relied on the case of Vihan Kumar Vrs State of Haryana & Anr. (2025) SCC Online SC 269, to support his contention that communication of the grounds of arrest must be made effectively and in a language that the arrestee understands in order to serve the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the constitution. It is submitted that non-fulfilment of this essential requirement vitiates the arrest and renders the subsequent proceedings liable to be quashed. It is the categorical statement of the Page No.# 3/5 applicant herein that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing to the accused at the time of arrest in the language which he understood. 3. In view of the above, learned counsel prays that the alleged accuse may be allowed to be released on bail pending investigation and trial of the case. 4. Learned P.P, Ms. S. Mere has produced the case diary and on the basis of the case diary, she has submitted that it was not a constable but an Armed Branch Sub Inspector (ABSI), who had made the arrest and the seizure. It is submitted that on 23.05.2025, while conducting checking at the old Police Check Gate Peducha by the 78 Battalion CRPF, the Seizure was made however, along with the CRPF personnel there was a representative of the police from the Sechu Zubza, Police Station who was ABSI. Accordingly it is submitted that the ABSI being an authorised person under the NDPS Act was not an unauthorised person to make seizure and arrest. 5. With regard to the service of the ground of arrest learned P.P had drawn the attention of this Court to the grounds of arrest wherein at Annexure-6 of the petition at paragraph 4 it is stated that the above stated ground of arrest has been explained to the accused in Hindi. In the arrest memo also in the column regarding language, it has been entered that the accused knows Punjabi and Hindi, therefore, the fact that the grounds of arrest has been explained in Hindi fulfils the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned P.P submits that the present bail application may be rejected as none of the grounds said Page No.# 4/5 forth by the petitioner/applicant has been proved. 6. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel and has perused the CD produced by the learned P.P. On going through the CD it is seen that the checking and frisking was initially done by CRPF personnel who are not authorised under the NDPS however, along with the CRPF personnel there was a police guide from the Sechu Zubza Police who was an ABSI. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the ABSI is an unauthorised person. While coming to the grounds of arrest, no doubt the grounds of arrest states that it has been explained to the accused in Hindi language. However, there is nothing to show on record that the ground of arrest was supplied to the accused in Hindi. The learned P.P has argued that a copy of the ground of arrest in Hindi was served upon the arrested accused person however no such acknowledgment or proof or copy is appended in the Case Diary and therefore it cannot be said that the grounds of arrest in written in the Hindi language has been supplied to the accused arrest person. The underlying philosophy behind the law laid down by the hon’ble Supreme Court in the of Vihan Kumar Vrs State of Haryana & Anr. (Supra) is that the accused requires to be properly informed of the grounds of arrest so that he is clear about why his liberty has been curtailed. It is also necessary to enable him to prepare his defence and the importance of compliance with Article 22 of the Constitution of India rest on a higher pedestal that the statutory restriction of bail. 7. In view of the observation made herein above, this Court is of the view that there has been a violation of the provisions and the mandate of Page No.# 5/5 Article 22 of the Constitution of India and for the above reason, the accused Shri. Dharam Singh is allowed to go on bail under the following conditions;- i) Execution of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount who shall be a local resident of Kohima. ii) The accused shall cooperate with the investigation agency and he shall not try to influence or temper with the evidence and he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the Court. 8. With the above conditions the petition is disposed. In case any of the above conditions are violated the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation/revocation of the bail. JUDGE Comparing Assistant