ORDER : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant, praying for release of the accused, Shri Dhan Sharmah, in connection with Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985, who has been arrested on 10.01.2025. 3. An F.I.R. was filed on 10.01.2025 by ASI T. D. Goiba of Doimukh Police Station to the effect that at about 0930 hours, a reliable information was received regarding the movement of suspected smugglers transporting a significant quantity of cannabis, thereby reported that the smugglers were traveling from Kalaktang, West Kameng District, in 2 (two) vehicles, heading towards Doimukh via Kalaktang-Rupa-Seppa- Sagalee Road. Upon receiving the information, SDPO Doimukh Radhe Obing along with SI M. K. Rai, ASI T.D. Goiba (himself), SI Tage Saa, ASI M.A. Nur and the Police Station's ready party, immediately proceeded to the said road for interception. Accordingly, 2 (two) vehicles, namely, Maruti Ertiga bearing Registration No. AS-02AG-0992 and another Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A-8655 were successfully intercepted at Sopo Village. The Maruti Ertiga vehicle was found carrying 26 (twenty-six) white plastic bags of suspected cannabis (Ganja), weighing total 134.45 kilograms. The suspected Cannabis (Ganja) was seized from the driver in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and independent witnesses. The driver, was identified as one Shri Lakshan Basumatary, thereafter, he was taken into custody. The other vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A- 8655 was found to be serving as an escort for transporting of the suspected Cannabis (Ganja). The 3 (three) occupants including the present accused were apprehended. It was stated that all the aforementioned individuals were suspected to be involved in smuggling of cannabis (Ganja) and accordingly, the suspected cannabis (Ganja) were seized along with the vehicles. 4. On receipt of the above F.I.R, a case has been registered being Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025 under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985. The accused was arrested on 10.01.2025 in connection with the above Doimukh P.S. case. 5. The accused moved a bail application, before the Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, however, the same was rejected on 28.01.2025 on the ground that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the main accused is yet to be arrested. 6. The accused was arrested on 10.01.2025 in connection with the above Doimukh P.S. case. 5. The accused moved a bail application, before the Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, however, the same was rejected on 28.01.2025 on the ground that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the main accused is yet to be arrested. 6. By filing the present bail application praying for grant of bail to the accused, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J. Tsering, submits that the ground of arrest of the accused has not been communicated as required to be done under the law. While referring to the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 in the bail application, he submits that there is nothing in the said Arrest Memo, which discloses the grounds of arrest, which is in clear violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the arrest of the accused person is illegal and accordingly, the accused is entitled to be released on bail even without surety. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 to project that to arrest a person, the provisions of the Act and the Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India has to be followed, else same would be illegal. 7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, by placing the Case Diary, has fairly submitted that although the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo was furnished to the accused, the grounds of arrest as required under the law appears to have been not furnished. While relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Anr. , reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269 , he submits that the requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. The information of the grounds of arrest ought to have been provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively. 8. Mr. The information of the grounds of arrest ought to have been provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively. 8. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that although in the present case the offence alleged against the accused is under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985, which ought to attract the embargo provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in view of the settled position of the law that when a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is established, such statutory restriction or embargo on granting bail shall not preclude the Court from granting bail, as the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail when the violation of Article 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India is established. However, insofar as the surety is concerned, he submits that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the case of Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and Anr. , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446 that the literal meaning of bail is surety. Therefore, if this Court is inclined to grant bail in the facts and circumstances of the case, a surety has to be provided so as to secure the attendance of the accused as the matter relates to an offence under NDPS Act, 1985. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the Case Diary as well as the Case Laws relied on by the learned counsels for the parties. 10. The accused was arrested on 10.01.2025 along with 3 (three) other accused persons and thereafter, he was furnished with the Arrest-cum- Inspection Memo. Perusal of the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo furnished to the accused as well as the intimation of arrest under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, does not disclose the grounds of arrest. The Check list which has been sought by this Court through the Additional Public Prosecutor although recorded the grounds of arrest, but the same admittedly has not been furnished to the accused. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) has held, which is reproduced as under: “ ...CONCLUSIONS 21. The Check list which has been sought by this Court through the Additional Public Prosecutor although recorded the grounds of arrest, but the same admittedly has not been furnished to the accused. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) has held, which is reproduced as under: “ ...CONCLUSIONS 21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non- compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 12. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 12. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and the materials available in the Case Diary as well as in the light of the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, referred to hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the applicant, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah, is entitled to be released on bail as the Police has failed to furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused in clear violation of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India although the offence alleged is serious as the same pertains to NDPS. 13. Accordingly, the accused, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah, shall be released on bail on personal bond in connection with Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025 under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985. 14. It is made clear that the grant of the bail to the accused is only on the ground that the accused has not been furnished with the ground of arrest in the light of the judgment and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and any observation made hereinabove, shall not affect the merit of the case. 15. It is further directed that the accused, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah shall regularly and punctually attend the Investigation Authority and the Court, as and when called for. 16. Bail Application stands allowed and disposed of.