Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010221742025 2025:GAU-AS:14308 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3233/2025 RAJA MIA BARBHUIYA S/O- LT. MANSMAN ALI R/O- MEHERPUR MHC LANE, P.O.- RANGIRKHARI, P.S.- SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788005 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, S. BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Raja Mia Barbhuiya, seeking regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No.77/2025 in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No.461/2025, registered under Section 21(C)/22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted giving rise to NDPS Case No.77/2025, which is stated to be pending for trial before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar and one of the accused is stated to be absconding. The present petitioner was arrested on 29.04.2025. 4. The case arose out of FIR dated 29.04.2025, pursuant to a search operation based on information and during the search, large quantity of psychotropic substances in the nature of suspected yaba tablets were recovered. As the said quantity prima facie falls in the (commercial quantity). The case was registered under the said provisions. 5. In view of the above nature of penal provision, the rigors of the rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act would be applicable and have to be tested. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is raising his contention primary on procedural infirmity at the time of the arrest of the petitioner. It is contended that the notices under Section 47/48 BNSS, 2023 have been rendered in English language, which is not an language understood by the petitioner. Though there is an endorsement about the same being read over in local language understood by the petitioner. It is contended in this context that the same would not suffice to meet the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 6. In support of the contention, the learned counsel has referred to the leading case of Prabir Purkayastha-vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in Page No.# 3/6 (2024) 8 SCC 254 and drawn my attention to paragraph No.25 therein and referring to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the 1980s pertaining to preventive detention, where the aspect of proper communication has been gone into. 7. On the basis of these principles, it is contended by the petitioner counsel that the nature of the notices in the instant case would still be violative of the Constitutional provisions, thereby entitling the petitioner to bail in terms of the law laid down in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra). 8. The scanned case record has been received. 9. The learned Addl. P.P. Mr. P. Borthakur, has stated the Court through the contents of the notices under 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023 and submits that the said contends are more than sufficient to comply with the requirements of the petitioner and his family members being sufficiently informed about the grounds of arrest. It is submitted that an endorsement also has been made about having been explained the grounds of arrest in a language understood by the petitioner. 10. The I/O has done all in his powers to comply with the said notices and therefore, it cannot be said there is inadequate compliance with the same. It is also pointed out by the learned Addl. P.P. that the age of the petitioner is a secondary factor especially when such a large quantity of contraband in the nature of psychotropic substances has been recovered. 11. I have perused the materials and considered the rival submissions. 12. Upon perusing the notices under 47 and 48, I find that they have reasonable details regarding the grounds of arrest, which is required to be Page No.# 4/6 provided to the accused and his family members. However, undoubtedly, the notices and the grounds of arrest are in English language, though as mentioned above, there is an endorsement of these been explained to the accused in his own language. 13. The judgment referred to by the Hon’ble Apex Court in para-25 of Prabir Purkayastha is the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. Union of India reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427 in the context of Article 22(5) of the Constitution pertaining to preventive detention. The provision of Article 22(5) may be reproduced herein below:- “When any person is [preventively] detained.... the authority making the [preventive detention] order shall. As soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made....” 14. The said provision pertaining to preventive detention also required the grounds of arrest to be communicated to the accused in a language that he understands. In the context of the said provision para-20 of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel (supra) which has been referred to para-25 of Prabir Purakayastha reads as follows:- “20. …. “Communicate” is a strong word. It means that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the “grounds” should be imparted effectively and fully to the detenu in writing in a language which he understands. The whole purpose of communicating the “ground” to the detenu is to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation. If the “grounds” are only verbally explained to the detenu and nothing in writing is left with him, in a language which he understands, then that purpose is not served, and the constitutional mandate in Article 22(5) is infringed…..” (emphasis supplied) 15. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the grounds are only verbally explained and nothing in writing him in a language that the detenu/accused, then the purpose would not be served and the constitutional mandate would still be infringed. Page No.# 5/6 16. Though the aforesaid decisions arose out of preventive detention law, nevertheless, the principles therein in my considered opinion shall also be applicable to an accused in conventional bail matters as well. Therefore, the ratio I determine from the aforesaid decisions is that the Investigating Agency and the arresting authority will be held to high standards as far as communication of the grounds of arrest is concerned not only in substance but also in form to make the constitutional rights meaningful. 17. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to give effect to the spirit of the constitutional provision enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such view of the matter, I am come to the considered opinion that though the I/O of the present case has travelled some distance in conveying the grounds of arrest to the petitioner; but nevertheless the same still falls short of the constitutional standards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to Prabir Purakayastha (supra) and the earlier decision of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel (supra). 18. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and the backdrop of the above discussion. I come to the considered opinion that the notices despite having some details of grounds of arrest still suffer from infirmity vis-a-vis the constitutional mandate and thereby entitles the petitioner be granted bail on the said grounds, as has been held in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra). 19. Accordingly, the accused petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 80,000/- with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar and subject to the following conditions that:- Page No.# 6/6 (i) He shall be available for the trial, (ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence. (iii) He shall not try to influence with the witnesses. (iv) He shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities including activities violative of the NDPS Act. 20. Violation of bail conditions will entail cancellation of the bail. 21. This bail application stands allowed and disposed of. 22. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant