Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010038972025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./543/2025 GURVEER SINGH S/O- LATE SUDHEER SINGH, R/O- WARD NO. 14, VILL- SIDHMUKH, P/O AND P/S SIDHMUKH, DIST- CHURU, RAJASTHAN 331701 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SC NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, SC, NCB BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 20.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Jain, learned standing counsel representing the NCB. 2. By filing this second bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, namely, Gurveer Singh, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 73/2022 corresponding to NCB Crime No. 28/2021 u/s 20(b)(ii)(c), 28/29 of NDPS Act, pending in the court of learned Additional Page No.# 2/5 Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup(M). 3. The matter relates to recovery and seizure of 426.910 kgs of Ganja from the roof of a truck bearing registration No. 01 AD 3773. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioner seeking bail. Earlier bail application was rejected by this Court on 10.09.2024 in BA No. 1793/2024. However, this time the petitioner prayed for bail on some new grounds by filing an additional affidavit that at the time of arrest of the petitioner on 15.11.2021, the arresting authority did not mention the ground of arrest in notice under section 50 Cr.P.C. as well as in the arrest memo which violates his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which resulted the arrest of the petitioner as illegal and therefore, he should no longer be retained in custody and be released on bail for the interest of justice. It is also submitted that the accused/petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than 3 years 9 months since his arrest on 15.11.2021. And out of eight cited witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, due to such irregularities committed during investigation as well as prolonged incarceration, the petitioner is entitled for bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. Jain, learned counsel representing the NCB by filing objection has submitted that the accused Gurveer Singh was the owner of the seized container truck bearing registration No. NL 01 AD 3773 which was seized with loaded 426.910 kg of ganja concealed in roof top above drivers’ cabin and provided the vehicle for trafficking of ganja. It is further submitted that the accused is the co-conspirator of the seized ganja. On analyzing the CDR number of Gurveer Singh, it is found that the accused was contacted with the accused Akshaylal Sahanai @ Achchelal Sahanai and with another suspected person namely, Kuldeep Page No.# 3/5 Kumar Sharma. As such, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of trial court record, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioner u/s 50 Cr.PC as well as arrest memo do not reflect any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has been detained in custody for more than three years and the prosecution has failed to complete the trial without showing any reasonable ground. 7. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (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.” 8. It is specifically stated in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) that not informing the arrested person about the grounds of arrest would amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and this alone would be a ground to grant bail to the accused even if Page No.# 4/5 statutory restrictions exist against the grant of bail. 9. 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. 10. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it is specifically stated in para 45 which is reproduced as follows – “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.” 11. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed about the grounds of 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 Page No.# 5/5 in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notices served to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 28/2021. 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. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail 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 surety should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kamrup (M). 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.5, Kamrup (M) without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (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. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of this court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case. 14. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant