Page No.# 1/12 GAHC030008232025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Application No. 56 of 2025 1. Abdul Mazid Laskar S/o:- Rajibul Ali Laskar, R/o: - Village:- Kullichura, P.O.:- Jumalpur, P.S.:- Dholai, District: - Cachar, State: - Assam PIN:- 788114, … APPLICANT. -Versus- 1. Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Address: - VIP Road, Rupkonwar Path, Chachal, Khanapara, Guwahati, Assam … RESPONDENT. Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the applicant: Mr. A. Baruah, Adv. Advocates for the respondent: Mr. C. Zoramchhana, Special P.P., NCB Date of order : 24.03.2026 ORDER Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). [2.] This is a bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying for grant of bail of the accused person. The case of the applicant is that the accused person was arrested on 02.05.2023 in connection with the recovery of 2.553 kilograms of suspected heroin kept in 200 plastic shop cases from the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-11-DC-5863 driven by the accused person, which was coming from Champhai towards Aizawl. The vehicle was intercepted at Seling Aizawl Road and the contraband substance recovered and seized. [3.] Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel submits that the accused person is languishing in jail for the last two (2) years and ten (10) months and that the Page No.# 3/12 trial has hardly made any progress especially of late. He submits that out of the nine (9) prosecution witnesses cited, only five (5) prosecution witnesses have been examined. That PW-2 was examined on 16.07.2025 and thereafter, the next PW was examined only on 20.03.2026. Considering the same, the learned counsel submits that examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is bound to take similar duration, if not more. As the trial is not likely to complete in the near future, the accused person may be released on bail. [4.] The learned counsel further submits that the arresting authority failed to comply with Section 50 & 50A Cr.P.C. by not giving the accused person the grounds of his arrest in writing. The learned counsel by drawing the attention of this Court to the arrest/court surrender form, annexed to the bail application as Annexure – 3, submits that although it is stated at paragraph No. 8 of the said form that the accused was taken into custody after being informed of the grounds of arrest and that an intimation was given to his brother, there is no separate material to show that the applicant was given the grounds of arrest in writing. Therefore, the same cannot be accepted as compliance of the mandate of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 47 of BNSS). Further, in addition to Section 50 Cr.P.C., there is to be substantial compliance of Section 50A Cr.P.C. since the same is in addition to the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. He submits that failing to comply with the aforesaid requirements amounts to Page No.# 4/12 violation of the Constitutional rights of the accused person as provided under Articles 22(1) & 22(5) of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submits that pending completion of the trial, the accused person may be released on bail on any such terms and conditions as this Court may deem it fit and proper. Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submissions has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414, (ii) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162, (iii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., [2025] 11 SCR 291, (iv) Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha, SLP (Criminal) No. 4169 of 2023, Judgment dated 13.07.2023, (v) Mahendra Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 Supreme (Online) (SC) 12367, (vi) Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 835, (vii) Md. Nazimul Hussain Barbhuiya Vs. State of Mizoram, Bail Application No. 25 of 2025, Judgment dated 14.07.2025, (viii) Abdul Kalam Laskar Vs. State of Mizoram, Bail Application No. Page No.# 5/12 41 of 2025, Judgment dated 15.09.2025, (ix) Madhu Ray Vs. Union of India, Bail Application No. 768 of 2025, Judgment dated 03.04.2025, (x) Hemanth Datta @ Hemantha @ Baby Vs. State of Karnataka, 2025 KHC 16018; and (xi) Amir Ali Vs. State of Assam, Bail Application No. 174 of 2025, Judgment dated 02.06.2025. [5.] Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the Apex Court passed the Judgment and Order in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 on 03.10.2023 and at Paragraph No. 45, the Apex Court clearly stated that the requirement of furnishing the arrested person the grounds of arrest would henceforth be required to be complied with. He submits that the word ‘henceforth’ having been employed, the said decision therefore would apply prospectively. In the present case, the accused person was arrested on 02.05.2023 prior to the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and therefore, the said decision cannot come to the aid of the accused person for granting him bail on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing. Similarly, the learned counsel submits that even in the case of Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Page No.# 6/12 Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 599, the Apex Court had taken note of the fact that in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), it was clearly mentioned that henceforth the grounds of arrest is to be communicated in writing as a matter of course. Therefore, the application of the decision is prospective in nature. [6.] The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also referred to the Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 1100 of 2025 (Arun Khundongbam @ Nanao Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), wherein the Court held that the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) can be made applicable only to arrest made after the said decision rendered by the Apex Court on 03.10.2023. In other words, in respect of the arrest made after 03.10.2023, an arrestee must not only be made known the grounds of arrest but the same must also be communicated in writing. The learned counsel therefore submits that even in the present case, the accused was arrested before the pronouncement of the decision of Pankaj Bansal (supra) and therefore, the accused person cannot have the benefit of the said decision. He further submits that even if it is insisted that the case of the present accused person is covered by the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), the fact remains that in a case where recovery of contraband substance is involved such as the present case, it is only apparent and clearly to be understood the reason as to why the Page No.# 7/12 arrest has been made. However, in cases involving offences which are primarily based on documentary evidence/records, such as economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), it would be necessary to furnish the arrested person the grounds of arrest in writing. He submits that in the present case the Arrest Memo reflects that the accused person was aware of the reason of his arrest and that he was legally represented from the beginning and had applied for bail shortly after the arrest the same therefore clearly shows that the accused person understood the accusations and the reason for his arrest. Therefore, in absence of any materials to show that prejudice has been caused to the accused person, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing in the absence of prejudice, will not ipso facto render him being kept in custody to be illegal or entitle him to bail. In this connection, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, refers to the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702. He also relies upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Karan Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Del 282. [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels of the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. As already stated, the accused person was arrested on 02.05.2023 for alleged recovery of 2.553 kilograms of suspected heroin from the vehicle that he was driving. After being Page No.# 8/12 in custody for more than five hundred (500) days, he submitted Bail Application No. 59 of 2024. The Bail Application was considered on 27.09.2024, wherein, the only submission made on behalf of the accused person was his long incarceration and that there was no progress in the trial. Accordingly, on the said ground, bail was applied for. [8.] This Court, however, after noticing that out of the nine (9) prosecution witnesses, two (2) prosecution witnesses were already examined was of the view that on account of the progress of the trial, bail should not be granted to the accused person and accordingly bail was rejected. The accused person has now come again before this Court through this instant bail application seeking bail on the ground that Section 50 and Section 50A of the Cr.P.C. has been violated apart from long incarceration in jail while on trial. The Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to the arrestee full particulars of the offences for which he is arrested or other grounds of such arrest and the Section 50(2) provides that when a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Section 50A(1) provides that every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code shall Page No.# 9/12 forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information. [9.] While such is the prescription, the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), which is a decision rendered on 03.10.2023 held that in order to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, it would be necessary henceforth that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Pursuant to the said Judgment, the Apex Court rendered similar decisions in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) amongst others. In all these decisions, the ratio laid down in Pankaj Bansal (supra) was followed. [10.] A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Karan Singh (supra) in the given facts of that case also held that the requirement to give written communication of the grounds of arrest is laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) would operate prospectively. The Court also held that the petitioner in that case was clearly aware of the substance and the basis of his arrest. Further, Page No.# 10/12 there was also an absence of prejudice being demonstrated coupled with the inordinate delay in raising the grievance about non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing. The petition was therefore dismissed by the Court. [11.] The facts in the present case are also somewhat similar. The accused person was arrested on 02.05.2023 for recovery of contraband substances from the vehicle that he was driving and he was accordingly informed about the grounds of arrest and his legal rights while intimation was given to his brother as can be seen from the arrest/court surrender form. Since, it is noticed that the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would apply prospectively and having regard to the date of arrest of the present accused person, he cannot be said to have any legitimate grievance. The case of Kanishk Sinha & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1405 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant also provides that the Judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. We have already noticed that the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) has deployed the word “henceforth”, which means that application of the ratio laid down would be prospective. Therefore, on this ground, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused person. [12.] However, it may be seen that the applicant is in jail since 02.05.2023 Page No.# 11/12 and as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is already about two (2) years and ten (10) months that he is in jail. As for the trial, only five (5) or six (6) witnesses have been examined out of the total nine (9) prosecution witnesses. The arrest/court surrender form would go to show that the accused person has no history of having jumped jail previously and that he has no past criminal record. Therefore, considering the period of his incarceration, the accused “Abdul Mazid Laskar”, shall be released on bail in connection with Sessions Registration Case No. 28 of 2024 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two (2) sureties of the like amount provided that one surety has to be a government servant to the satisfaction of the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram and subject to the following further conditions:- (i) The accused shall appear before the Court of the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) The accused 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; Page No.# 12/12 (iii) The accused shall submit his Aadhaar and Pan card before the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram; and (iv) The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram without prior permission. [13.] The Bail Application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant