Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010050132025 2025:GAU-AS:3615 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./714/2025 BAHARUL ISLAM S/O KHOIM UDDIN R/OVILL-ALOPATI, P.S. ALOPATI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27.03.2025 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is preferred by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Alopati Char P. S. Case No. 08/2025, registered under Section 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that an allegation has been brought against the present petitioner regarding the recovery of heroin, which falls under the category of intermediate quantity. The petitioner has been behind bar since 02.03.2025, and the Investigating Officer (IO) got sufficient time to interrogate him while keeping him in custody. He further submitted that the petitioner's mother is on her deathbed, and there is no one to lookafter her. Additionally, he submitted that although the forwarding report includes certain enclosures, such as the arrest memo, inspection memo, and notices issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, however, those documents more particularly the arrest memo and the notice were never served to the petitioner or to his family members. Thus, he submitted that the aforesaid grounds constitute a strong ground for considering the petitioner’s bail application. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the I.O in the further investigation of the case, if granted the privilege of bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the contraband was allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the Page No.# 3/4 accused/petitioner and that sufficient incriminating materials have been collected by the I.O, which has been sent for forensic testing. However, the FSL report is yet to be received. He further submitted that admittedly the case diary does not contain the notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, but the same were enclosed at the time of forwarding the accused/petitioner. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides and also on perusal of the case diary as well as the materials available on record, it appears that while the accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case, neither the ground of arrest was communicated to him nor he was even served with notices or to his family members, which is in clear violation of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. 7. In view of above and also considering the health condition of the accused/petitioner’s mother and further taking into account the fact that the accused/petitioner has been behind bar since 02.03.2025, this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner as the I.O. got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation keeping him in the custody. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only with 1 (one) surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Barpeta, the accused/petitioner, namely, Baharul Islam, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, Page No.# 4/4 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 any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Barpeta, without prior permission. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Return the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant