Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010197582025 2025:GAU-AS:16247 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2888/2025 JOBED ALI S/O JAHERUL HAQUE R/O SHUKARUR KUTHI, P.O. SUKARUR, P.S. SAHABGANJ DIST. COOCH BEHAR, WEST BENGAL- 736168. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU (NCB). Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 28-11-2025 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. N. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.C. Keyal, the Page No.# 2/7 learned Standing Counsel, NCB. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 23.12.2023 in connection with NDPS Case No. 196/2024 corresponding to NCB Crime No. 20/2023 u/s 22(c), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 pending before Hon’ble Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M). 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Biswas that the present accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 23.12.2023 and till date he is in custody for more than 1 year 11 months. Prosecution has cited 10 nos. of witnesses out of which 3 nos. of witnesses already been examined and there are 7 nos. of witnesses yet to be examined by the prosecution. Accordingly, he submitted that the prayer of the bail may be considered on the ground of prolong incarceration and at the same time it is also seen from the report that completion of trial within reasonable period also cannot be expected at this stage. 5. In support of his submission Mr. Biswas further relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (i) Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odissa [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 533]; (ii) Shariful Islam @ Sharif Vs. The State of West Bengal [SLP(Crl) 4173/2022 (Decided on 04.08.2022)]; and (iii) Md. Muslim alias Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), [2023 SCC OnLine SC 352]. 6. He further raised the issue of the non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the present accused/petitioner at the time of issuing the notice under Page No.# 3/7 Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. as well as in the Memorandum of Arrest, which is a mandatory requirement. He submitted that non-compliance with this requirement amounts to a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 7. In this context also, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner, cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 8. He further submitted that the claim of the respondent that the accused/petitioner was provided with sufficient grounds of arrest through the communication of the Memorandum of Arrest is untenable. He contends that the said Memorandum of Arrest does not specify the offence allegedly committed by the accused/petitioner. It merely states that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner under Section 8(c), read with Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, which, according to him, does not constitute specific compliance with the constitutional mandate. He submits that this amounts to a clear violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, he submits that the notice issued under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. does not reflect any grounds of arrest, except for the case number and other Page No.# 4/7 general particulars. There is no mention of the specific grounds of arrest, which also constitutes a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he submits that in light of these constitutional violations, as well as the prolonged incarceration of the accused/petitioner, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. He further undertakes that, being a permanent resident of the stated locality, he will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed. 9. Mr. Biswas also submitted that though in the case of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act follows, but in cases where there is violation of the constitutional provision as mandated under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India, the statutory restriction will not affect the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. More so, non-mentioning of grounds of arrest while issuing the Arrest Memo or Notices under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. is itself in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and hence, without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to bail. 10. He further submitted that out of 5 nos. of accused/persons four co- accused/persons have already been granted bail by this Court as well as the Court of learned Trial Court and hence the case of the present petitioner also may be considered on the ground of parity. 11. Ms. Deka further submitted that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the present accused/petitioner and hence his bail petition cannot be considered on the ground of parity for the other co-accused persons. More so, he is a habitual offender and two other cases have been pending against the present accused/petitioner out of which one is NCB Trial No. 19/2023. She further submitted that three prosecution witnesses have already Page No.# 5/7 been examined and the trial is also going on in a good pace and the evidence of other Pws also may be concluded within a reasonable period. She further submitted that in a case of commercial quantity, the bail cannot be granted only considering the period of long incarceration. In support of his submission she also relied on two decisions of Coordinate Benches of this Court passed in Bail Application No. 1660/2025 and Bail Application No. 2674/2025 dated 16.10.2025 and 24.10.2025 respectively, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Darshan (supra) wherein it has been held that delay in trial cannot by itself constitute a valid reason to dilute the gravity of the offence. In the same time it also has been held in para 20.1.5 that non-communication of written ground of arrest cannot be the only ground for considering of bail, if does not cause any prejudice to the accused/person. 12. Ms. Deka further relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in a Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 9792/2025 and basically relied on para 12, 13 of the said judgment wherein it is observed by the Apex Court that if the offence is punishable under 10 to 20 years of imprisonment, the period of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner cannot be said to be incarcerated for a unreasonably long time. 13. Mr. Biswas, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in this regard that from the objection filed by the respondent NCB it is clear that the contraband was allegedly have been recovered from possession of 5 nos. of persons who were boarded in a car and all the 5 nos. of accused/persons got arrested in connection with this case. Thus, it cannot be said that the contraband was recovered from the conscious possession of the present accused/petitioner rather the cases of the other co-accused persons are also Page No.# 6/7 situated in the similar footing. Accordingly, the bail application for the present accused/petitioner can be considered on the ground of parity as all the other co- accused persons have already released by bail by this Court as well as by the Court of learned Trial Court below. 14. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the case record. It is an admitted fact that the case of the present accused/petitioner and the other co-accused persons are similar in nature and wherein it is the specific allegation brought against all the accused/persons that the recovery of contraband was made from conscious possession of all the five accused/persons who were altogether in a car. It also reveals from the record that the bail application of the co-accused/persons were considered by this Court on the ground of non-communication of ground of arrest as well as period of long incarceration. In the same time it also cannot be denied that the conclusion of the trial within the reasonable period also cannot be expected at this stage as 7 nos. of witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. 15. Considering all facts and circumstances of this case, especially on the ground of parity and also considering the period of long incarceration vis-à-vis the non-communication of proper ground of arrest, this Court is of view that the present petitioner is also entitled to go for bail. 16. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M). The accused/petitioner, namely Jobed Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- Page No.# 7/7 (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M); and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M) without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant