Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030001442026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./5/2026 Union of India R/b Sh. Lian Samte Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Aizawl Regional Unit, Mizoram VERSUS Sh. Sabir Ahmed and 2 Ors. S/o Abdul Sukkur R/o VIII-Medal Part-I, P.O. Kanishall Dist.- Karimganj, Assam 2:Sh. Khapil Hussain 3:Sh. Azir Uddi 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 petitioners. 2. By way of this criminal petition filed under Section 528 read with Page No.# 2/6 Section 483 (3) of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners are challenging the 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. 219/2025 in connection with DRI Case No. 08/CL/IMP/NDPS-METH/DRI-AZL/2024- 25 dated 14.11.2024. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: - “a) That on 13.11.2024, the officers of DRI, Aizawl Regional Unit, acting upon a specific and credible intelligence input, intercepted one Mahindra XUV 300 (Black Colour) bearing Registration No. AS-24D-2555 at Bawngkawn-Durtlang Road, Aizawl, Mizoram at about 10:00 PM. The intelligence indicated that a sizeable quantity of Methamphetamine tablets of foreign origin was being transported in a concealed manner in the said vehicle, which was en route to Silchar from Seling. The detailed intelligence input and its communication to the superior officer are reflected in the Final Complaint filed before the Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl. b) That upon interception, the officers found four occupants in the said vehicle who identified themselves as (i) Shri Khapil Hussain (driver), (ii) Shri Sabir Ahmed, (iii) Shri Azir Uddin, and (iv) Shri Zakir Hussain. The officers introduced themselves, explained the purpose of interception, and in compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, offered each of the accused the option of being searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. They opted for search before a Gazetted Officer of DRI. c) That in order to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to statutory procedure, the vehicle along with its occupants and the independent witnesses were brought to the DRI Office, Aizawl. The search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of DRI, the two independent witnesses, and the accused. During the search, an orange- coloured passenger seat was recovered, containing eight (8) Page No.# 3/6 brick-sized packets, seven of which were wrapped in black plastic and one in transparent plastic. Each packet was further wrapped in brown paper bearing the marking 'KING' under a red crown symbol. The entire search was videographed. d) That upon conducting the preliminary test using the field test kit, the recovered substance was confirmed to be Methamphetamine. The total net weight of the contraband was found to be 7.872 kilograms, i.e., more than the notified commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act. The seized substance, the vehicle, and mobile handsets of the accused were seized under a proper seizure memo prepared contemporaneously in the presence of witnesses. e) That the four accused persons were arrested at 07:00 AM on 14.11.2024 after being informed and explained the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language understood by them. Each accused acknowledged the same by signing on the arrest memo. The statutory requirements of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 52 of the NDPS Act were thus fully complied with. f) That the seized samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Aizawl, for chemical analysis, and the report confirmed the substance to be Methamphetamine, a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act. g) That the voluntary statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act reveal their conscious involvement in the trafficking of Methamphetamine. The statements further disclose that they were engaged by one Junab Ali of Aizawl for transporting the drugs from Zemabawk, Aizawl to Silchar for monetary consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/.” 4. Upon completion of investigation, the DRI filed the final complaint dated 06.05.2025 before the learned Special Judge against the petitioners, establishing conscious possession against the accused/petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, by order dated 29.08.2025, was pleased to grant bail to the accused/petitioners Page No.# 4/6 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. 5. Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, 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/petitioners and their relatives as well at the time of their 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 petitioners 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/petitioners at the time of their 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/petitioners 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/petitioners at the time of their 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 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 Page No.# 6/6 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.” 9. It is an undisputed position that in the present case the accused/petitioners were not given the grounds of arrest in writing during their arrest, and hence their 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/petitioners on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not given to them 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