Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010003092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./43/2025 MAFIJUL HAQUE S/O MD. MAJNUR ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FANCYPARA GARIGAON, PS JALUKBARI, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MR. R P SARMAH,MS S ISLAM,MS. U HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER Date : 21.05.2025 Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this second bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Mafijul Page No.# 2/7 Haque, has prayed for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 01/2024 (S.T.F. P.S. Case No. 06/2023) under Section 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR has been lodged on 11/07/2023 before the Officer-in-Charge, S.T.F Police Station stating inter alia that on 10/07/2023, on receipt of an information regarding drugs dealer would strike a deal in Garigaon and Baihata area, a joint search was conducted in the said area. During search operation, information was received that the deal was shifted to another location somewhere at Sonapur. Accordingly, police rushed to Sonapur near toll plaza and the peddlers were traced travelling in two vehicles i.e., Hyundai Creta and a Honda City. The police tried to stop the peddlers at Sonapur toll gate. However, the peddlers in the Creta vehicle bearing No. AS-01- FE-1589 hit the barricade of toll gate and sped away towards Guwahati. Though the police fired aiming at the tyre of the vehicle to prevent it from escaping but the bullet hit the vehicle. Police team chased to apprehend the vehicle but failed to do so. 4. On the other hand, the Honda City vehicle bearing No. AS-01-BL-2211 was intercepted at Sonapur toll gate and the lone peddler who was detained accordingly. During search of the Honda City vehicle, about 1.873 kgs of suspected heroine was recovered, which were seized accordingly. The present accused petitioner was found inside the Honda City vehicle along with heroine and he was arrested. Thereafter, a case was registered vide S.T.F P.S. case No. 06/2023. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one and half year since his arrest on 11.07.2023. It is also submitted that the alleged contraband Page No.# 3/7 substance has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the prosecution has not provided any material evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was involved in the alleged offence. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, notice was served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. wherein grounds of arrest has not been shown which is clear violation of the provisions of law. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following case laws – a) Ashish Kakkar vs. Ut of Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1518/2025. b) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283. c) Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India & Ors. in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3051-3052 of 2023. 7. Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the accused/petitioner was found inside the vehicle along with contraband items and accordingly, charge sheet against the accused/ petitioner and the co-accused was submitted u/s 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act. Thereafter, charge was framed under the said sections of law on 21/01/2024. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the petitioner. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the trial Page No.# 4/7 court record, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo does not show any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioner. 9. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. If the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. Consequently, the arrest and the subsequent remand of the arrested person cannot be sustained. 10. In another case vide Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA (P) Act or for that matter any other offences. The accused has fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 11. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in Page No.# 5/7 such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 12. In the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of Pankaj Bansal, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and the Court held as follows – “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as per the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” Page No.# 6/7 13. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with S.T.F. P.S. Case No. 06/2023. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 01/2024 (S.T.F. P.S. Case No. 06/2023) under Section 21(c)/29(1) of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, Assam, without prior written permission from him/her till disposal of the case; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial; and Page No.# 7/7 (c) 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. 15. The observation made by the Court is for the purpose of this bail application only, not on merits of the case. 16. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 17. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant