Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010048342025 2025:GAU-AS:5957 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./690/2025 WASEEM S/O- LIYAKOT , R/O- VILL- CHADANKI, PS PUNHANA, DISTY- NUH MEWAT, HARYANA 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 Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 14.05.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. M. A. Choudhury for the petitioner Waseem. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita, 2023 withprayer for bail as he is behind bars since 18.05.2022 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.78/2022 Page No.# 2/4 arising out of Bazaricherra PS Case No.93/2022 under Section 20(b)(ii) (C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. Heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been behind bars for 2 years 11 months 27 days and only 5 out of 11 witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner’s right to personal liberty has been curtailed due to the procrastination of trial by the Court as well as by the State. 5. The petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit and has brought up the argument that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner. On theground alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail as his right to personal liberty has been curtailed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PrabirPurkayasthaVs The 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. Page No.# 3/4 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.” 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection, stating that the petitioner is booked under a heinous offence and the length of detention is not a criterionto grant him bail. 8. The petitioner was apprehended transporting 1183Kgs of ganjain the garb of transporting waste material through the truck. Charges were framed on 05.11.2022 and trial is proceeding at a regular pace, which is not a case where trial has been procrastinated. 9. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the trial Court records. 10. The petitioner is indeed booked in a heinous offence but the petitioner Page No.# 4/4 deserves bail as the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in a language understood by the petitioner. 11. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofPrabirPurkayastha (Supra), it appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 12. In view of my foregoing discussion, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 he is alleged, (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court till completion of trial and (iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence them. 13. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 14. In terms of the above observation, Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant