Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010246392025 2025:GAU-AS:16411 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3607/2025 IMZAZUL HOQUE ALIAS INZAZUL HOQUE SON OF LATE NUR ISLAM SHEIKH R/O JHAGRARPAR PART I, PS DHUBRI, DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SURAJIT DAS, MD A RAHMAN,MR. A TARAFDAR,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ,MR A W AMAN,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 01.12.2025 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, Page No.# 2/4 for granting bail to the accused-applicant, who was arrested on 20.08.2025, in connection with Dhubri P.S. Case No. 348/2025, registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The gist of the allegation as could be seen from the FIR dated 19.08.2025 is that, on receipt of relevant information, the police team went to the house of a suspected drug dealer Imzazul Haque and the police team seized altogether, 60(sixty) nos. of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup and 240 (two hundred forty) nos. of blue colored capsules, suspected to be banned narcotic materials. 4. Accordingly, a case was registered as Dhubri P.S. Case No. 348/2025, under the aforesaid sections and since then, the accused-applicant is in judicial custody till date. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there is apparent non-compliance of the mandates of Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, while arresting the accused-applicant by the arresting authority. The learned counsel submits that neither the Grounds of arrest were given to him nor his close relatives/nominated family members or friend were informed during the arrest of the accused- applicant. The learned counsel, has referred to the ratio laid down in the cases of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has very clearly held that in the event of non-compliance of Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS whereby, it is mandatory to provide the Ground of Arrest to the accused or his family member or friend is violated then, this is a ground for allowing an accused-applicant to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. P.P. submits that the no non- Page No.# 3/4 compliance of the mandates under Sections 47 & 48 is apparent from the record of the case therefore, it is submitted that at this stage, the accused-applicant should not be granted bail. 7. This Court has gone through the TCR as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. It is apparent that Grounds of Arrest were not mentioned either in Section 47 or Section 48 notices, rather, what had been stated in the aforesaid notice were the Reasons of Arrest. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) has held that Reasons of Arrest and Grounds of Arrest are two distinct aspects involved in the case and the same may not be equated. 9. In view of the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, this Court is of the opinion that non-compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS goes to the very root of the matter that is the procedure adopted by the arresting authority while arresting the accused-applicant, which clearly violates the provisions of Article 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions laid down under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, merits the accused-applicant to be allowed to go on bail. Therefore, it is directed that the accused-applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Dhubri, subject to the following conditions:- (1) That the accused-applicant shall cooperate in the trial and shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required by the Trial Court; (2) That the accused-applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, Page No.# 4/4 or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts from the trial pending against the accused-applicant; (3) That the accused-applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the police station of Dhubri without prior consent from the learned Trial Court i.e. the Special Judge (NDPS), Dhubri. 11. With the above observations and directions, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. TCR is to be sent back immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant