Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010085032025 2025:GAU-AS:5965 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Linked Case : Bail Appln./333/2025 SOFINA BEGUM W/O HARISH ALI R/O VILL- BOGLIGOAL P.S. BADARPUR DIST.SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN-788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR F Z MAZUMDER Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 14.05.2025 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Choudury for the petitioner Sofina Begum. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as she is behind bars since 05.11.2024 in connection with SPL (NDPS) Case No. 115/2024 arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 267/2024 under Sections 21(b)/22(c)/25 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind bars for 98 days. 11.81 gms of heroin along with 2000 yaba tablets was allegedly found in her conscious possession. Charge-sheet has not been submitted and this case has been fixed for copies. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the petitioner is booked under a serious offence and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, acts as an embargo. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notice under Section 47 of the BNSS and the arrest memo clearly reveals that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner and this entitles the petitioner to bail. 7. I have scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. The arrest memo and the notice contains a cryptic account of the offence. The grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner to be understood by the petitioner. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has failed to contradict the submissions Page No.# 3/5 of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The notice under Section 47 of the BNSS to the petitioner also reveals that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana and Anr reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269, wherein it has been observed that:- “22. In ground A of the writ petition filed before the High Court, a specific factual contention has been raised to the following effect: "A. BECAUSE the arrest of the Petitioner dated 10.06.2024 Is patently illegal inasmuch the Petitioner was not provided with the grounds or reasons of arrest. Even the same contention is raised in ground B very specifically and a further contention is raised due to non- compliance with the requirement of informing the appellant of the grounds of arrest, the appellant's arrest is rendered illegal. The same is the ground specifically taken in ground E also. Thus, the appellant repeatedly pleaded violation of Article 22(1) by explicitly contending that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayashtha Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 8 SCC 254, wherein it has been observed that:- “ Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right b 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. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary Page No.# 4/5 and sacrosanct inasmuch as this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” 11. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records. 12. I have also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayashtha (Supra) and Vihaan Kumar (Supra). It appears that bail has to be granted to the petitioner. 13. In view of my foregoing discussions, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 lac with 2 (two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which she is alleged, (ii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them, and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till completion of trial. 14. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 15. In terms of the above observation, Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant