Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010042272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./614/2025 ABDUR KADIR S/O LATE MANJIR ALI R/O VILL-DASGRAM (KANDIGRAM) P.S. NILAMBAZAR, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 22.05.2025 1. Heard Mr M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner – Abdul Kadir. Also heard Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/5 2023 for prayer of bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 31.03.2023 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 24/2023 arising out of Ratabari P.S. Case No. 92/2023 registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 pending before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sribhumi. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner’s right to personal liberty has been curtailed as the petitioner has been incarcerated for a prolonged period and charges are not yet framed but cognizance was taken on 19.09.2023. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that on 05.02.2025, the case was split up and separated and now trial will proceed. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to bail as he is booked under a heinous offence for transporting more than 1 ½ kg of heroin. 4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contraband was not recovered from his conscious possessions and the vehicle seized in connection with this case was used by the petitioner’s younger brother. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not criminal antecedent. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has raised objection stating that the Case Diary analysis clearly reveals constant touch of the petitioner with the prime accused and the petitioner is deeply involved in this case and this is the reason why charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has prayed for bail as the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner and on the grounds of prolonged incarceration which curtails the petitioner’s right to personal liberty. Annexure-1 is the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. and the Arrest Memo. It is submitted that Annexure-1 clearly reflects that the grounds of Page No.# 3/5 arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner is thus entitled to bail. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein it has been observed that: “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. 48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirendra Kr. Choudhury vs. the State of Assam wherein vide order dated 14.08.2024 in connection with Crl. Page No.# 4/5 Appeal No. 3379/2024 corresponding to SLP [CRL.] No. 5068/2024, the appellant - Dhirendra Kr. Choudhury was enlarged on bail as the appellant was on the premise of trial and he was behind bars for 17 months. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of a co- ordinate bench of this Court in Bail Appln. No. 1100/2025 wherein vide order dated 09.05.2025 in Arun Khundongbam @ Nanao, it has been observed that: “24. It would be worthwhile to mention that the Apex Court has held in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which is reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused. However, the case of Pankaj Bansal (Supra) can be made applicable only to arrests made after the said decision rendered by the Apex Court on 03.10.2023. In other words, in respect of arrest made after 03.10.2023, an arrestee must not only be made known the grounds of arrest, but the same must also be communicated in writing.” 10. It is further submitted that this case was prior to the decision of the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 as the petitioner was arrested on 31.03.2023 and the petitioner is indeed not entitled to bail. 11. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 12. It is true that the petitioner has been behind bars and trial has not yet commenced. Not a single witness has been examined. The culmination of trial appears to be remote. It is true that the petitioner is booked under a serious offence but I have relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhirendra Kr. Choudhury (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra). It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner considering the prolonged incarceration and the failure of proper communication of the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Page No.# 5/5 13. The petitioner – Abdul Kadir is hereby enlarged on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two suitable sureties of like amount subject 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, (ii) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses, and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. 14. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 15. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant