Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010021432025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./288/2025 KUTUB UDDIN AHMED S/O NOWSHAD ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MARIAM NAGAR, PO BALADMARI, PS AND DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR H DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Kutub Uddin Ahmed who has been detained behind the Page No.# 2/5 bars since 17.02.2024 in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 51/2024 under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 17.02.2024, one B. Daimari, ASI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Guwahati GRPS, inter alia, alleging that on that day at around 2:00 p.m. when the informant was doing regular checking duty at Kamakhya Railway Station, the Train No. 156768 DN Brahmaputra Mail had arrived at platform No. 2 and they also conducted the luggage checking in the same train. During the search operation, a person (present petitioner) was found sitting along with a navy blue colour backpack and was found in nervous situation. On suspicion his backpack was searched and during search 0.393 kg of suspected morphine was recovered from his possession and accordingly he was arrested. 4. The learned senior counsel has submitted that in this case charge sheet has already been laid and till date only 1 out of 8 witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars since 17.02.2024. He, however, submits that the main ground from which the petitioner is seeking his bail is that at the time of his arrest when the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no grounds of arrest was mentioned in that notice. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the police station case number and the penal provision involved in the case no other information was mentioned in the said notice. The learned senior counsel submits that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee is a constitutional mandate as well as statutory mandate and any violation of the same would entitle the petitioner to be released on bail. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in Page No.# 3/5 the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr.,” reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 269”. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, and, therefore the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. He further submits that the necessity of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing as observed by the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of”Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India” reported in “(2024)7 SCC 576” is prospective in nature i.e., from the date when the said clarification was made by the Apex Court in the case of “Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India” (supra) i.e., 04.08.2023. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Ram Kishor Arora vs Directorate Of Enforcement” (SLP (Crl.) No. 12863/2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 3865/2023) wherein the Apex Court has clarified that the use of word henceforth by the Apex Court in the case of “Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India” (supra) would show that the necessity of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is prospective in nature, i.e., from the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India” (supra). 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on records including the scanned copy of the NDPS Case No. 210/2024 which was called for in connection with this case. 8. On perusal of the copy of notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, it appears that the said notice does not contain any grounds of arrest. It only mentions the GRPS Case number as well as the penal provision of the Page No.# 4/5 NDPS Act under which the petitioner was booked in this case. 9. Thus, there has been a violation of the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 of furnishing the grounds of arrest. Even, we accept the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the observations of the Apex Court in the case of “Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India” (supra) regarding furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is applicable only prospectively still it may not help the State in this case as the judgment in the “Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India” (supra) was delivered on 04.10.2023 whereas the present petitioner has been arrested on 17.02.2024. Which shows that in the case, the present petitioner who was arrested much after the judgment of “Pankaj Bansal VS Union of India” (supra) was delivered by the Apex Court, there was a requirement of furnishing the written grounds of arrest to him when he was arrested, however, in this case same was not done. No basic facts were mentioned which necessitated his arrest in this case in the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which was served on him at the time of his arrest. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that in this case there has been a violation of mandatory provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and on that count only the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 10. In view of the above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M), with the following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 210/2024, Page No.# 5/5 which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M); ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioners; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 11. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant