Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010209282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3026/2025 SAIDUL SK S/O GOLAP SK. R/O CHAGOLIA PT.I, P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783335 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M ISLAM, MR. SANU HUSSAIN,MR K THAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 24.10.2025 Heard Mr.K. Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Mr. S. Hussain appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state respondent. 2. By invoking the provisions of Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the accused petitioner Saidul Sk. is seeking regular bail in connection with Golakganj P.S. Page No.# 2/3 Case No.22/2024 registered under Section 21(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which has given rise to Special Case No.318/2024 presently stated to be pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri. 3. The accused was arrested on 09.02.2024 and since then he is under detention. 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the main contention is that notice under section 50/50A of the Cr.P.C. (as it existed then) do not meet the standard laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana and Anr. (2025 SCC Online SC 269). 5. The scanned copy of the TCR has been received and I have perused the case record. 6. I have also perused the Remand Order dated 09.02.2024. The notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein below : “NOTICE U/S 50 Cr.P.C. Dated : 09-02-2024 Ref :- Golakganj PS Case No. 22/2024, U/S/ 21 (C) NDPS Act. To, Saidul SK, age 26 yrs S/O Golap SK Vill - Chagolia Pt-1 PS - Golakganj Dist - Dhubri (Assam) Page No.# 3/3 You are hereby informed that you are under arrest in connection with above reference case and the case is non-bailable to Police. So, you are forwarded to the Non’ble Court. You may submit petition before Hon’ble Court for your bail.” 7. Thus, I find quite clearly that the aforesaid nature of the notice under Section 50/50A of the Cr.P.C. given to the accused do not meet the standard laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) so as to fulfil the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. 8. It is well settled that in the face of such non-compliance, the accused will be entitled to bail. 9. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner Saidul Sk.is allowed to go on bail of ₹50,000/- with the surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri subject to the following suitable conditions : (i) The petitioner shall be available for trial, if one commences; (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper with the evidence or try to influence witnesses; (iii) The petitioner shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities of drug peddling or consuming; 10. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of. Return the CD. JUDGE Comparing Assistant