Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030001422026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./4/2026 Union of India R/b Sh. Lian Samte Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Aizawl Regional Unit, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Ikbal Hussain S/o Late Nazrul Haque R/o Rupalgool, P.S. Nilambazar Dist. Karimganj, Assam Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 12.03.2026 Heard Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. By way of this criminal petition filed under Section 528 read with Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner is challenging the Page No.# 2/6 impugned bail order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Judge”), in Bail Application No. 238/2025 in connection with DRI Case No. 09/CL/IMP/NDPS-METH/DRI-AZL/2024- 25 dated 03.12.2024. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: - “a) That on 03.12.2024, at about 2:30 PM, the officers of DRI, Aizawl Regional Unit, acting upon specific intelligence, intercepted one Hyundai Grand i10 (White) bearing Registration No. AS-01DL-1971 at Bawngkawn-Durtlang road, Aizawl. The information indicated that a large quantity of Methamphetamine tablets was being transported towards Silchar, Assam. b) That two independent witnesses associated and the team proceeded for interception. At around 5:00 PM, one person approached and started the said car. He was immediately intercepted. He identified himself as Ikbal Hussain, S/o Late Nazrul Haque, of Rupargool, Karimganj, Assam, and showed his Aadhaar Card in proof. On enquiry, he denied possession of contraband. Considering safety, a spot summons dated 03.12.2024 was issued directing his appearance at the DRI Office, Aizawl, along with the vehicle. c) That at the DRI Office, the accused, on sustained questioning, voluntarily confessed to carrying contraband concealed inside a used truck tyre kept in the car's boot. On the strength of a search authorisation, the tyre was opened in the presence of the accused and independent witnesses, leading to recovery of 10 brick-sized packets containing Methamphetamine tablets. Each packet contained 50 sachets of tablets. d) That field testing confirmed the substance to be Methamphetamine. The total net weight was 9.831 kilograms, valued at approximately Rs. 9.83 crore. The seized goods, vehicle, and wrapping materials were duly inventoried, Page No.# 3/6 sealed, and handed to Customs Disposal Godown. e) That the seizure proceedings concluded at 9:00 PM on 03.12.2024, followed by the arrest of the accused at 9:30 PM under Sections 22(c), 23(c), 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act. The grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused in writing and explained to him, and his acknowledgment appears on the Arrest Memo dated 03.12.2024. His brother Dilwar Hussain was informed of the arrest. f) That voluntary statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act disclosed that one Jamal of Karimganj, Assam had engaged him for transportation of the contraband for monetary consideration. Subsequent retrieval of Call Detail Records (CDRs) from telecom companies revealed links between the accused and the said Jamal. g) That the entire search and seizure proceedings were audio- visually recorded through GoPro-9 and a digital certificate under Section 63(4) BNSS was submitted to the Court on 04.12.2024. h) That the seized samples were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl, vide forwarding letter dated 04.12.2024. The FSL report dated 18.12.2024 confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine in all ten samples. i) That the accused and seized materials were produced before the Hon'ble Court on 04.12.2024, which certified the inventory and photographs under Section 52A(2) NDPS Act.” 4. Upon completion of investigation, the DRI filed the final complaint dated 24.05.2025 before the learned Special Judge against the petitioner, establishing conscious possession against the accused/petitioner. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, by order dated 29.08.2025, was pleased to grant bail to the accused/petitioner solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in writing in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. Page No.# 4/6 5. Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is apparent from the arrest memo (Annexure-G to the criminal petition) itself that the grounds of arrest were fully explained to the accused/petitioner and his relatives as well at the time of his arrest, and hence necessary compliance with the constitutional safeguard enumerated under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India has been fulfilled. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, including the impugned bail order dated 29.08.2025, it is apparent that the bail has been granted solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not given in writing to the accused/petitioner at the time of his arrest. 7. The only issue for determining in the instant petition is whether the learned Special Judge ought to have granted bail to the accused/petitioner despite the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, solely on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not given in writing to the accused/petitioner at the time of his arrest. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), wherein it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the requirement of informing a person arrested of the grounds of his arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court further emphasized that when a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the arrestee and that statutory Page No.# 5/6 restrictions also shall not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India is established (Refer: - Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr, reported in 2025 SCConline SC 269). 8. Apt also to refer to the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing as mandatory. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment read as under: - “55. This Court is of the opinion that to achieve the intended objective of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the grounds of arrest must be informed to the arrested person in each and every case without exception and the mode of the communication of such grounds must be in writing in the language he understands. 66. In conclusion, it is held that: 66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNS 2023); 66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands: 66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” Page No.# 6/6 9. It is an undisputed position that in the present case the accused/petitioner was not given the grounds of arrest in writing during his arrest, and hence his arrest is vitiated. 10. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, I do not find any legal infirmity or illegality having been committed by the learned Special Judge in granting the bail to the accused/petitioner on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not given to him in writing. 11. That being so, I do not find any merit in the criminal petition. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant