Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010037532025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./527/2025 ABDUL KADIR LASKAR S/O- LATE MUSSABIR ALI LASKAR, VILL- HAWAITHANG, PO HAWAITHANG, PS DHOLAI, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MR. A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 25.04.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Choudhury for the petitioner Abdul Kadir Laskar. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 27.03.2025 in connection Page No.# 2/5 with Special (NDPS) Case No. 08/2023 arising out of Karimganj Police Station Case No. 50/2023 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that grounds of arrest were not mentioned to him. Annexure-B is the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC which clearly reveals that grounds of arrest were not mentioned to him. Annexure-A is the arrest memo which clearly reveals grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 , wherein it has been observed that:- “16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22. “ 6. The petitioner has also on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page No.# 3/5 Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, wherein it has been observed that:- “19. 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 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 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.” “45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.” 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge- sheet was submitted on 31.05.2023 but charges were not framed due to absence of co-accused. The petitioner’s right to liberty has been curtailed due to the procrastination of trial. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that although 18 witnesses are enlisted in the charge-sheet, the petitioner’s incarceration is not to such an extent that his right to liberty is curtailed. Page No.# 4/5 9. The rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act acts as an embargo. The petitioner was involved in carrying 86 kgs of yaba tablets and this is the reason why charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the heinous nature of offence. 10. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have considered the submission that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner. 11. I have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayashtha’s case (Supra) and also in Vihaan Kumar’s case (Supra). Moreover, the petitioner has been behind bars for 2 years 1 month and charges have not yet been framed. 12. In view of my foregoing discussions, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 1 lac with two suitable 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 he is alleged, and (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial. 13. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Trial Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 14. The Trial Court may also impose further conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. 15. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 JUDGE Comparing Assistant