Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010242252025 2025:GAU-AS:14888 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3577/2025 JUBE NUR KAZI SON OF LATE AZIR UDDIN KAZI RESIDENT OF VILL- BHAIRABNAGAR P.O. KRISHNAPUR, P.S. SILCHAR SADAR DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SC, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE (DRI) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K MIRA, F RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 04.11.2025 Heard Mr. K. Mira, learned counsel for the accused applicant and Ms. P. S. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short, ‘DRI’). 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for Page No.# 2/5 granting regular bail to the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 261/2024 corresponding to DRI Case No. 22/CL/NDPS/MORPHINE/DRI/GZU/2023-24 charge sheeted under Section 18(C)/21(C)/22(C)/23(C)/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated is that the accused applicant has been arrested along with 3 (three) other accused allegedly acting upon specific information from Coach No. A1 of the train No.13176 (Silchar-Sealdah Kanchanjunga Express) a Guwahati Railway Station, Assam on 03.02.2024 at about 11 PM. It has been alleged that a total of 8 nos. of packages containing brown colour powdery substances suspected to be Morphine packed in transparent plastic pouches and wrapped with brown colour adhesive tape total weight 4.141 Kg was recovered from their possession. Contraband drugs were formally seized at the office of the Addl. Director General, DRI, Guwahati. Accordingly, a case under Section 42/43 of NDPS Act, 1985 vide DRI Seizure case No. 22/CL/NDPS/MORPHINE/DRI/GZU/2023-24 was registered. Subsequently, the I.O. of the case has filed the charge sheet / final complaint under Sections 18(C)/21(C)/22(C)/23(C)/29 of NDPS Act and NDPS Case No. 261/2024 has been registered and the same is pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Kamrup. 4. The accused applicant was arrested on 03.02.2024 and since then he is under the judicial custody. 5. The allegation is about recovery of 4.141 kg of suspected psychotropic substances Morphine from the possession of accused and co- accused persons. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant is non compliance with regard to Section 50 of Page No.# 3/5 Cr.P.C. which stipulates that the grounds of arrest to be provided to the accused person at the time of his arrest. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that he is no way connected to the instant offence as alleged in the complaint and in fact, he is a daily wage earner and when assured a job by the co-accused, namely, Samsur Uddin Kazi at New Farakka, Malda, West Bengal, he accompanied the aforesaid co-accused. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant has been arrested in the instant case only on the basis of suspicion as he was accompanying the other co-accused in the case. He further submits that nothing as alleged in the case has been recovered from his possession. He submits that since the mandate of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with by the arresting authority at the time of his arrest, an apparent violation of Article 21 & 22 (1) of the Constitution of India has been committed by the arresting authority. He further submits that co-accused in the instant case, namely, Samsur Uddin Kazi and Saria Begum @ Saria Begum Kazi have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, therefore, he submits that the accused applicant should also be allowed to go on bail for the specific reasons of violation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. 6. Ms. P. S. Chakraborty, the learned Standing counsel for the DRI submits that no prejudice has been caused to the accused applicant as the accused applicant was aware of the grounds of arrest. She submits that the case involves seizure of large quantity of narcotics and the investigation has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused person. 7. Considering the fact that 2 (two) co-accused have already been Page No.# 4/5 granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court and also taking into account the ratio laid down in the case of Vihan Kumar-vs-State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online 269, wherein, it has been held that compliance with Section 50 & 50 (A) of Cr.P.C. are mandatory and the grounds of arrest in reasonable details, specific to the accused, have to be provided to the accused and also to his family members or relatives or nominated person at or around the time of arrest, in failing to do so, the subsequent detention of the accused becomes untenable entitling him for bail. 8. 8. In the instant case also, it is seen that the grounds of arrest in notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. were not provided in reasonable details. The Arrest Memo also did not provide the grounds rather provided only the brief facts of the case along with the particulars of the person arrested. 9. In view of the aforesaid, in the instant case also, as noticed, notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. is apparently not in terms of the mandates of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vihan Kumar (Supra), which constitutes a fatal procedural infirmity at the time of arrest, violative of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the accused applicant, namely, Jube Nur Kazi is entitled to be allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court of the Addl. District Sessions Judge No. 3, Kamrup subject to the following conditions:- (a) the accused applicant shall not hamper and/ or tamper with the evidence of the case; (b) the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any Page No.# 5/5 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (c) the accused applicant shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Kamrup; (d) the accused applicant shall make himself available during the trial. 10. Accordingly, the instant Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant