Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010227492025 2025:GAU-AS:16727 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3366/2025 MD SADDAM S/O WASHI AKHTAR, R/O VILL. N.K. DARRANGA, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST. TAMULPUR, ASSAM, PIN 781367 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MD. M. ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 04-12-2025 Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Saddam, who has been Page No.# 2/5 arrested in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 11/2024 arising out of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023 under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the status report as called for has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Paul, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. Further, he submitted that the present accused petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years and hence considering his period of long incarceration, he may be released on bail. 5. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also raised the issue that the grounds of arrest was not mentioned by furnishing the arrest memo, inspection memo and notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C which is a mandatory requirement. He also submitted that the family members of the accused petitioner were also not served with any notice under Section 48A BNSS intimating the grounds of arrest. 6. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that such non-compliance of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS corresponding to Section 50 and 50A of the Cr.P.C constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution as well as statutory provision, which would vitiate the arrest itself. 7. He further submitted that 13 numbers of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution, but except the official witnesses no other witness implicated the present petitioner and more so, owner of the house wherefrom the alleged seizure was made is already declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case. 8. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that considering the judgment Page No.# 3/5 of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. Vs. The State of represented by Assistant Commissioner passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025 also considered that grounds of arrest should be communicated as has been explained in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra). 9. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also relied on another two decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No.3305/2025 and BA No.3338/2025, wherein also the bail was granted considering the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. 10. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that the accused is the only bread earner of his family having children and the entire family is suffering due to his absence as there is no one to look after his family. He further submitted that the accused is a permanent resident of the address locality and there is no chance of his absconding and he will regularly appear before the learned Special Judge as and when the date is fixed by the Court. 11. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025, wherein the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is also discussed in detail and it is also considered by this Court that accused was well aware about the grounds of his arrest as the entire contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that apart, he also led the police team for recovery of the remaining contraband. 12. Mr. Sarma, learned APP further submitted that at the time of passing the earlier bail order, 13 numbers of prosecution witnesses were examined and as per status report all the prosecution witnesses have already been examined Page No.# 4/5 except the I.O. and 06.12.2025 is the date fixed for examination of the I.O. He further submitted that the case is at the verge of ending of trial and after examination of the I.O., the arguments may be heard and the case may be decided accordingly. 13. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submits that the accused belong to the State of Bihar and he is not a permanent resident of Assam and hence, the probability of his absconding also cannot be denied at this stage. More so, it can be expected that within a reasonable period, the trial of the case will be over and hence, he raised vehement objection and submitted that the accused petitioner may not be granted bail at this stage. More so, most of the witnesses implicated the present petitioner and it reveals from the evidence of the PWs that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 14. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR as well as the case record. 15. It is a fact that his earlier bail application was earlier rejected vide order dated 06.08.2025, passed in BA No.1786/2025, wherein detailed discussion has been made in regards to the issue raised by the learned counsel for non- compliance of the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS corresponding to Section 50 and 50A CrPC. 16. It also reveals from the record that the recovery was alleged to have been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner and that apart, he also led the police team for recovery of the other contraband from his house wherein it was kept. Thus, it was observed in the order dated 06.08.2025 that the accused was well aware about his grounds of arrest and that apart, notice was also served on the petitioner and thus, there was substantial compliance of Section Page No.# 5/5 47 and 48 of the BNSS and thus, it cannot be held that there is violation of constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 17. More so, from the record it is seen that the trial is also going on a good pace and within 2 years, the learned Special Judge had almost completed in recording the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and only the I.O. is left to be examined. 18. In view of the entire discussion made above, and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, the stage of trial of the case vis-à-vis the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 19. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Md. Saddam, in Special (NDPS) Case No. 11/2024 arising out of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023 under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act stands rejected. 20. This bail application is accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant