Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010030392026 2026:GAU-AS:3524 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./487/2026 SACHIN KUMAR S/O DEV NARAYAN KANTI, R/O SHARIFGANJ, DAHARIA MOLLS, PS KATHAR, DIST KATIHAR, BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, MD A RAHMAN,A MISHRA,MR A W AMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 10-03-2026 Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sachin Kumar in connection with Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 160/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 16.06.2024 and as on today, he is custody for 632 days. He further submitted that it is alleged that some contraband was recovered from his possession and accordingly a case was registered and charge sheeted under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. Till date, out of six numbers of witnesses, only two witnesses could be examined by the prosecution including one seizure witness. 5. He further submitted that two co accused persons were already granted bail by this Court considering the non furnishing of grounds of arrest through 50 and 50A CrPC Notices, corresponding to Section 47 and 48 BNSS. He further submitted that for the present petitioner also there was no compliance of Section 47 and 48 BNSS Notice corresponding to Section 50 and 50A CrPC. He further submitted that the certified copy of Section 50 and 50A CrPC has already been furnished along with the petition, wherefrom it is seen that no ground of Page No.# 3/8 arrest has been mentioned in the said Notice except case number and date of arrest. 6. At the same time, Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted tht the family members of the petitioner, who hails from Bihar has not received any notice under Section 50A, which ought to have been furnished to the family members of the petitioner intimating his ground of arrest. 7. In that context, Mr. Das, learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) wherein it is held that the communication of written grounds of arrest through 47 and 48 BNSS is mandatorily required and otherwise it will amount in violation of fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 8. Mr. Das, learned counsel also submitted that the seizure witness whose evidence has already been recorded by the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case and denied his presence at the time of recovery of the contraband. Mr. Das accordingly submitted that considering the prolonged incarceration, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be considered. 9. Accordingly, Mr. Das, learned counsel submitted that considering the case of the present petitioner in the same footing, the prayer for bail may be considered for the petitioner and he will appear before the learned Trial Court as and when the date is fixed. 10. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted that the present petitioner is very much involved in the alleged offence and from his possession, the recovery was made. He further submitted that till date two witnesses could be examined by the prosecution and the case is still under investigation and if the petitioner is Page No.# 4/8 granted with the privilege of bail at this stage, the every possibility of his absconding cannot be denied as he hails from Bihar. More so, from the forwarding report itself, it is seen that the petitioner was provided with the Notices under Section 50 and 50A CrPC and thus legal rights were also been informed to the petitioner. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted that there is sufficient compliance of Section 50 and 50A CrPC. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. 11. Mr. Sarma, learned APP further submitted that the case is of commercial quantity and hence the rigor of Section 37 NDPS will also follow and from the materials available in the case record and the statement made by the witnesses, it cannot be held that the accused petitioner was not guilty of the said offence, nor there can be any reasonable ground to believe that he will not commit the offence, if he is enlarged on bail, which is required as per Section 37 NDPS Act to consider a bail application in case of commercial quantity. 12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR along with the annexures filed along with this petition. 13. It is a fact that at the time of issuance of Notice under Section 50 CrPC corresponding to Section 47 BNSS, there is no grounds of arrest mentioned in the Notices which is required as per Section 50 CrPC corresponding to Section 47 BNSS. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner also emphasized on the point of written communication of the ground of arrest while issuing the Notice under Section 50 and 50A CrPC. Page No.# 5/8 14. Further it is the plea of the petitioner that the family members of the petitioner never received any Notice under Section 50A CrPC corresponding to Section 48 BNSS which violates the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 15. But from the case record it is seen that the entire contraband was recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner, who along with the contraband was apprehended by the I.O. thus, the plea that he was not aware about the ground of his arrest cannot be considered at this stage. 16. At the same time, the purpose of furnishing the ground of arrest to his family members is to engage any counsel to release the accused petitioner on bail, but here in the instant case, it is seen that the petitioner had already engaged a counsel praying for bail. 17. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1201 the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed the view that “the mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend”. 18. In para 20.1.2; 20.1.3; 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 of the above referred judgment has held as under:-- “20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in Page No.# 6/8 every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.” 19. Here in the instant case also it is seen that the entire contraband was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and his case is also not similar to the other co-accused persons, who were arrested subsequently on the basis of the statement made by the present petitioner. Thus, it cannot be held that he was not aware about the grounds of his arrest and that apart it is also seen that there is compliance of Section 50 CrPC, wherein he was given opportunity and thus the legal right were also informed to the petitioner. 20. But from the record it is seen that inspite of lapse of 632 days of custody of the present petitioner, the prosecution could examine only two witnesses, out of six cited witnesses and hence, the probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected at this stage. 21. In the case of Rabi Prakash (supra), the Apex Court has granted bail to the accused with a view that “the prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.” 22. In the case of Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. the State of West Bengal Page No.# 7/8 [Criminal Appeal No(s). 245/2020 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 8823/20190] also, the bail was granted by the Apex Court considering the long period of incarceration and also considering the fact that out of 10 (ten) numbers of witnesses, only 4 (four) witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 23. Again, in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra), considering the period of detention of 1 year 7 months, the bail was granted considering that the prosecution could examine only one witness and also considering that the case is at the preliminary stage of trial. 24. In the instant case also it is seen that the accused petitioner is already in incarceration for a long period and probability of completion of the trial within a reasonable period also cannot be expected. So without going into the other detail merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner may be released on bail considering his prolonged incarceration, which otherwise violates the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution. 25. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner, namely, Sachin Kumar, be released on bail in connection with Special Case No. 545/2024 arising out of Gauripur P.S. Case No. 160/2024 registered under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, one surety has to be a government servant to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special Judge, Dhubri, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the Page No.# 8/8 facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before learned Special Judge, Dhubri; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, without prior permission. 26. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant