Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010051292025 2025:GAU-AS:6186 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./847/2025 UPENDRA KUMAR GOSWAMI S/O RAMJEE GOSWAMI VILL- JHAWAN KE MATHIYA, SHAHPUR P.O. BIHIYA P.S. BIHIYA DIST. BHOJPUR, BIHAR PIN- 802301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P SARMAH, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR H DAS,MS. T SOM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 16.05.2025 1) Heard Ms. T. Som, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Page No.# 2/5 Assam. 2) This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Upendra Kumar Goswami, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.01.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 213/2024, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The said case is presently pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3,(FTC), Kamrup(M), Guwahati. 3) The gist of accusation in this case is that on 19.01.2024, one Pranamika Barman, ASI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of GRPS, Guwahati, inter-alia, alleging that on 19.01.2024, at around 5:20 AM during the checking duty at Guwahati Railway Station, the train No. 12423 DN Rajdhani Express standing at Platform No. 1 of Guwahati Railway Station was searched and during the checking duty, the petitioner was found with a grey colour trolley bag sitting in sit No. 8 of the coach No. B-6. On search of the said trolley bag total 26.270 Kgs of suspected ganja was recovered therefrom. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on earlier occasions, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court, by order dated 25.02.2025, in Bail Application No. 3274/2024. However, she submits that this time, the petitioner has approached this Court with a new ground i.e., non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, when the petitioner was arrested. She submits that at the time of his arrest, though the petitioner was furnished with a notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., however, said notice did not contain any basis facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in this case or any grounds of arrest therein. 5)She therefore, submits that in this case, there has been a violation of the Page No.# 3/5 constitutional mandate as well as the statutory mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, which renders his arrest itself and on that ground itself, he is entitled to get bail. She has relied on the ruling of the “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.” 6) On the other hand, Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the trial has fairly progressed and charges were already framed and 2(two) prosecution witnesses have already been examined. He, however, fairly submits that though the petitioner has put his signature in the notice under Section 50, which was served on him, however, it does not contain any grounds of arrest. He also submits that the contraband which was seized in this case was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 7) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of NDPS Case No. 213/2024. 8) In the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another (supra) the Apex Court has observed that violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in providing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee at the time of his arrest would vitiate the arrest itself and it would be a good ground for releasing such an arrestee on bail. 9) In the instant case also, as revealed from the records that though the notice under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, however, said notice does not contain any grounds of arrest, it only mentions the police station case number as well as the Page No.# 4/5 penal provisions involved in this case. It does not mention about the basis facts which necessitated the arrest of the present petitioner. Thus, in this case, there has been a violation of the constitutional mandate as well as statutory mandate in not furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner and on that ground, he is entitled to get bail. 10) The petitioner is therefore, allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3,(FTC), Kamrup(M), with the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation of the NDPS Case No. 213/2024,; (ii) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the NDPS Case No. 213/2024, 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3,(FTC), Kamrup(M) without prior permission of said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court the Page No.# 5/5 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. 11) With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant