Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010046382025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./694/2025 DHIMAN BHATTACHARJEE S/O- LATE DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE, R/O- DAS COLONY, BYE LANE NO.5, WARD NO 18, PS SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE 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 MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 07.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Dhiman Bhattacharjee, who has been detained behind the bars since 07.01.2024 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 05/2024 Page No.# 2/6 corresponding to Karimganj P.S. Case No. 19/2024 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 06.01.2024, one Krishnamoni Kolita, WSI of Karimganj Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Karimganj Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on 06.01.2024, at about 5:30 PM, an information was received through reliable sources to the Superintendent of Police of Karimganj that one four wheeler red colour Wagan-R car bearing Registration No. AS-11-D-8655 coming from Badarpur to Patharkhandi through National Highway No. 37 was carrying huge quantity of suspected drugs hidden inside the said vehicle. Accordingly, a GD entry bearing GD Entry No. 152 dated 06.01.2024 was made at Karimganj Police Station. Thereafter, a police team was constituted and a naka checking was arranged near Karimganj bypass road near Sherwali Dhaba on the National Highway No. 37. During naka checking, the vehicle (Wagan-R), bearing Registration No. AS-11-D-8655, which was coming from Badarpur towards Patharkhandi via Karimganj bypass road, was intercepted. The driver of the vehicle along with another occupant was found inside the said vehicle. On enquiry, the driver was identified as Kumarjit Deb and the other occupant of the vehicle was identified as Dhiman Bhattacharjee (present petitioner). During search of the said vehicle, one big brown packet inside which small packets were found concealed on the back side of the driver's seat and the rear seat, a bag was found to containing total 9,000 numbers of Yabba tablets weighing about 992 grams were recovered from the said vehicle. During investigation, the sample of the seized contraband, which was examined at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Silchar, gave positive test for Methamphetamine. Ultimately, on conclusion of the investigation, finding sufficient materials against the co- Page No.# 3/6 accused and the present petitioner Dhiman Bhattacharjee, the charge-sheet was laid against both of them under section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on which he is pressing the instant bail application is that in this case there is a violation of the the constitutional provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory provisions of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the time when the present petitioner was arrested. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as mandated under the law, the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the present petitioner while he was arrested on 07.01.2024. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the certified copy of the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was served on the petitioner at the time when he was arrested. 5. On perusal of the said certified copy, it appears that apart from the case number i.e., Karimganj P.S. Case No. 19/2024 as well as the penal provisions involved in the case i.e., Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, nothing was mentioned in the said notice. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the arrest memo as well as inspection memo which were furnished at the time of arrest also does not contain the grounds of arrest. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that furnishing the ground of arrest to the person arrested at the time of his arrest is a constitutional as well as statutory mandate and failure to comply with the requirement of informing the ground of arrest as soon as possible after the Page No.# 4/6 arrest would make the arrest itself illegal. He also submits that once the arrest is vitiated, the arrested person cannot be detained in custody. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana and Anr.”, reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 269”. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that on perusal of the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is annexed as Annexure-A to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, it appears that the grounds of arrest were not stated in the said petition. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available in this case. 10. I have also perused the copy of the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest. I have also perused the arrest memo as well as inspection memo prepared at the time of arrest of the present petitioner. 11. It appears on perusal of the said notices that apart from the mentioning the police station case number i.e., Karimganj P.S. Case No. 19/2024 as well as the penal provisions involved in the case i.e., Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, no other information has been furnished therein. 12. The communicating of the grounds of arrest would require the communication of all such details in the hands of Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused in a case. The ground of arrest is distinct from the communication regarding arrest made to the petitioner. In the case relied upon by the petitioner in the case of “Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana Page No.# 5/6 and Anr.” (supra), the Apex Court has observed that simply informing an individual of his arrest does not fulfill the constitutional and statutory requirement provided a grounds of arrest to the arrestee. 13. In the instant case, no such basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the present petitioner were communicated to him in the notice served upon him under Section 50 or in any of the other communications. Hence, there is clear violation of constitutional provisions of Article 22 of the Constitutional of India as well as Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 52 of the NDPS Act not furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 14. In paragraph No. 20 of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of “Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” (Supra), it is observed as follows: “20. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) has been made. The reason is that due to noncompliance, the arrest is rendered illegal; therefore, the arrestee cannot be remanded after the arrest is rendered illegal. It is the obligation of all the Courts to uphold the fundamental rights.” 15. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner, namely, Dhiman Bhattacharjee, is entitled to be released on bail and accordingly, he is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a resident of the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi with the following conditions: Page No.# 6/6 i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation of the Karimganj P.S. Case No. 19/2024; ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the Karimganj P.S. Case No. 19/2024 as and when so required by him for the sake of fair completion of the investigation; 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 Investigating Officer; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card as well as Mobile Number, and other contact details to the Investigating Officer; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant