Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010207672025 2025:GAU-AS:17648 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3041/2025 PAMIDI ANAND S/O PAMIDI SREERAMULU R/O 14-381, HUDKO COLONY P.S. B. KOTHAKOTA DIST. CHITTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN-517370. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. M DEKA, SC, CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.12.2025 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. I.U Choudhury, learned counsel appering for the petitioner. also heard Mr. S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department, who has also produced the records maintained by the department in connection with the present case. Page No.# 2/8 2. The brief facts leading to the institution of the present bail petition under the provisions of Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 are enumerated below. 3. Based on the information received from a reliable source, the officials of the Customs Preventive Force, Silchar, waylaid a Truck bearing Registration Number AP39UX5157 on the suspicion that it was carrying dried leaves with flowering top suspected to be ganja. The petitioner was driving the vehicle and on being apprehended, he provided his Aadhaar card as an identification document. The truck was intercepted at around 0130 hours on 17.05.2025 and thereafter it was brought to the office of the Superintendent of the CPF, Silchar at about 14:30 hours on 17.05.2025 along with the truck. 4. On opening the hidden chambers within the truck itself which were behind the driver's seat, a recovery of 674 kg net of dried leaves with flowering top believed to be ganja was made. The contraband was found concealed in the specially built cavity in the cabin behind the driver's seat of the truck bearing registration number as recorded hereinabove. The customs officers, in the presence of independent witnesses, gave the intercepted person an option in writing whether he wished to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate to which he opted for being searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. 5. The personnel of the search party made the search in the presence of the Superintendent in charge of the Customs Preventive Force Silchar . No other contraband item was recovered from him other than two mobile phones and some documents. The petitioner was thereafter arrested at 17:15 hours on 17.05.2025 and his wife was informed over phone about his arrest. 6. The petitioner was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate on 18.05.2025 and on such production, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody till 20.05.2025. The order dated 18.5.2025 passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Cachar, Silchar reflects that the petitioner had been asked about the engagement of a lawyer Page No.# 3/8 from his own resources and since he could not engage a lawyer, an assistant LADC was engaged to represent the accused person. On being asked, the accused person had stated before the learned Magistrate that he and his family members or relatives had been properly informed by police regarding the grounds of arrest. 7. Mr. H R A Choudhury Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although it is shown on record that notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was prepared and issued, the same does not contain the signatures of any of the friend or relative or nominated person of the arrestee. By referring to the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS-2023 as available in the bail petition as annexure 6, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that it reflects that the wife of the petitioner was shown to have been informed through cellular calling on a particular number but it does not disclose the time of such alleged call or the details of the number from which call was made. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it remains a fact that none of his relatives or friends or family had received any notice of the arrest of the petitioner nor were any family member informed about the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. 8. By referring to the arrest memo dated 17.05.2025, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that even the said arrest memo does not disclose appropriate grounds of arrest. The learned Senior Counsel has prayed that in view of the violation of the right of the petitioner to have his family, friends or relative informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, the arrest and further remand of the petitioner has suffered vitiation and therefore has prayed that the petitioner may be allowed the privilege of bail under such conditions as may be deemed fit. 9. Retorting to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Customs Department has submitted that records would reveal that the petitioner had been informed about the grounds of his arrest through the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS and it also Page No.# 4/8 remains a fact on record that the petitioner had been served with an English version of the arrest memo along with a vernacular translation of the in a language which the petitioner understood. The learned counsel for the Customs Department has further submitted that since the petitioner had divulged only the name, phone number and address of the wife of the petitioner, she was informed through cellular call on the same day itself. 10. By referring to a letter dated 25.09.2025, The learned Counsel for the Customs Department has submitted that the same would reveal that the notice to the wife of the petitioner was also sent through the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Customs Division, 4th Floor, Srinivasa Tower, Padmavati Nagar, Tirupati. He further submits that a perusal of the return note of the aforesaid Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Tirupati would reveal that the address of the wife of the petitioner was visited and it was found that the persons were not residing at that place and the whereabouts were not known to the neighbours. By referring to the records contained in the note sheet with regard to the case, learned counsel for the Customs Department has submitted that as per the note sheet at page number 2, it was evident that the arrest was intimated to the family of the petitioner on the same day that is on 17.5.2025 and thereafter, he was produced before the Honourable Judicial Magistrate First Class Silchar with a prayer to the Court to take cognizance of the incidence, of the inventory certification and of the arrest of the said person. 11. By referring to the order dated 18.05.2025, the learned counsel has submitted that it is a matter of record that the accused person stated before the learned Magistrate that he and his family members have been properly informed by the police regarding the ground of arrest. 12. The submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties have been duly considered. The records produced by the Learned Counsel for the Customs department has also been duly perused. The records reveal that a letter was sent to the Assistant Page No.# 5/8 Commissioner of Customs on 19.07.2025 requesting the verification of the address of the applicant herein and also to verify the ownership of the truck bearing registration number AP39UX5175 and for any other investigation deemed necessary in the case. By another letter dated 21.07.2025, the Customs Preventive Force Silchar had requested the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Customs at Tirupati that inadvertently certain crucial details were omitted from the previous follow-up letter. It was mentioned in the letter dated 21.07.2025 that two mobile phones were also seized from the petitioner which contained certain SIM cards and the copy of the registration certificate retrieved from the mobile phone of the accused. The seized vehicle bearing registration number AP39UX5175 appeared to be registered in the name of a certain P. Ramesh etc. In view of the above, it was requested that necessary investigation and antecedent verification be carried out including further enquiry based on the above phone numbers and necessary enquiry in respect of the suspected owner of the seized vehicle based on the address in the RC may also be conducted. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs sent a communication dated 25.9.2025 to the Superintendent Customs Preventive Force Silchar, contents of which have already been referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 13. The records produced by the Learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department do not divulge the means by which the notice under section 48 of the B.N.S.S. 2023 were sent either to the family (wife) of the accused or to any of the authorities in the jurisdiction of the residence of the wife of the petitioner for service at the earliest possible instance and there is no record to show that after 17.05.2025 and prior to 19.07.2025, any attempt had been made by the Respondent Customs Department to follow up as to whether the notices under section 48 of the B.N.S.S. were in fact served on the wife of the petitioner. 14. It is trite that when the petitioner cites violation of his rights under provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, it was incumbent upon the respondents to show Page No.# 6/8 that the rights had been protected in a manner recognized in law. Though it may be true that due to the prevailing factors like the wife of the petitioner residing in another state may have been a reason for the respondents in failing to serve a notice as required under provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 immediately after the arrest of the petitioner, however, the records reveal that the respondents had apparently connected with the office in Tirupati only after 2 months from the date of arrest and no records or statements have been brought before this Court to indicate that best efforts had been made by the arresting authority to inform the family/friends or relatives as may have been nominated by the petitioner regarding the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. 15. This Court further notices that the petitioner had been detained at around 1.30 AM in the early morning of 17.5.2025 and he was brought to the police station at around 4.30 AM in the morning of 17.5.2025. The records do not reveal as to at what time the petitioner was produced before the Remand Magistrate. In the usual course of events and in the absence of any records indicating to the contrary, this Court has no option but to assume that the same was done during the regular office hours of the Learned Magistrate, which would mean at a time after 10 o'clock on 18.5.2025. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be obvious that the petitioner had been produced before the Learned Magistrate after 24 hours of him being taken into custody had elapsed. 16. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma; reported as AIR Online 2025 Supreme Court 355, the Apex Court had held that the arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody without being produced before the nearest magistrate. The court further held that once a court while dealing with the bail application finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrests in such cases stand vitiated. 17. This Court therefore is of the opinion that, on both the counts enumerated above, Page No.# 7/8 the arrest and remand of the petitioner was in violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner under the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 18. The Court notices that the allegations against the petitioner are to the extent of recovery of a huge amount of suspected ganja from the truck which was being driven by the applicant accused. However, in light of the violation of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner by provisions of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, in the present matter this Court is of the view that the arrest and the consequent remand of the petitioner is illegal and is vitiated and bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non- fulfilment of the strict provisions of NDPS Act. The petitioner is accordingly found entitled to the privilege of bail. 19. This Court notices that the petitioner has proclaimed himself to be a resident of a State which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Investigating authority and also of the Learned Court which would have the authority to take up the case of the petitioner for Trial, in case a charge sheet is submitted against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of releasing the petitioner on bail are required to be imposed to ensure his participation in the investigation and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when and if the petitioner is put up for trial. This court therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar under the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar without prior written permission; ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; Page No.# 8/8 iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered) before the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. The Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating authority and/or Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar as and when required to do so; viii) the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the investigation. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The investigating authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 20. The bail petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant