Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010169172025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2489/2025 MOHD. TAHJEEV AND ANR S/O- TAUKEER HUSSAIN. R/O-VILLAGE- MAINATHER, TAHASIL BILARI, P.S/P.O- MAINATHER, DISTRICT- MORADABAD, UTTARAKHAN-244301. 2: MOHD. HUSSAIN S/O- MUNABBAR R/O-VILLAGE- TAHARPUR 1 P.S/P.O- MAINATHER DISTRICT-MORADABAD UTTARAKHAND-244301 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU (NCB) Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MS N KHATUN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 20.02.2026 Heard Mr. A M Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R K D Choudhury, Deputy SGI, appearing for the NCB. 2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioners, namely, (1) Mohd. Page No.# 2/3 Tahjeev and (2) Mohd. Hussain, have prayed for release on bail, who were arrested on 16.03.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 322/2024 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 03/2024 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Notice under Section 50 CrPC served upon the petitioner does not disclose the grounds of arrest to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was disadvantaged and his right under Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the family/relative or friends of the petitioners had not been duly informed about the grounds of arrest and therefore the further detention of the petitioners on and after 16.03.2024 i.e. production of the petitioners before Magistrate had become illegal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Dy. SGI has drawn our attention to the Memorandum of Arrest and has submitted that it discloses enough and more grounds for the detention of the petitioners and therefore read together, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not informed about the grounds of their arrest. He has, however, fairly submitted that the records made available to him by the concerned authority do not reflect that the grounds of arrest were reflected in so many words when the relative of the petitioners had been allowed to contact them to be apprised of the arrest of the petitioners. 6. This Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has on several occasions held that non communication of the grounds of arrest to the petitioners and his family, relatives and friends prior to the production before the learned Magistrate would render the very detention of the petitioner after the remand to be illegal. 7. In such circumstances, when the arrest of the petitioners is rendered illegal, in the opinion of the Court that, the rigors everse of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not act as a hurdle for this Court to ensure that the petitioners are not deprived of their rights under the Constitution of India. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is constraint to opine that detention of the petitioners after their remand would suffer as setback and therefore the petitioners would be entitled to the privilege of bail in the present matter. 9. The petitioners have proclaimed themselves to be the persons with permanent residence beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Trial Court. The Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the petitioners have been charged with offences under the NDPS Act, which has become the bane of the Page No.# 3/3 society and being residents beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court, this Court has to impose such conditions which would ensure their further participation in the trial proceedings. 10. Therefore, this Court directs that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifity Thousand) each, with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom shall be a Government Servant and at least one of whom shall have immovable property, within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court to the satisfaction of the said Court, subject to the following conditions: i) the petitioners shall appear before the learned Special Judge, on each and every date, as fixed by the learned Special Judge and also cooperate with the investigation as and when called upon; ii) the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged; iii) the petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, without prior written permission; iv) the petitioners shall not hamper and tamer with the evidence of the case; v) the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. vi) the petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card, mobile number, and other contact details before the learned Trial Court, if the same are not yet seized; vii) the learned Special Judge shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioners in the trial; viii) the prosecuting 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. 11. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant