Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010004282026 2026:GAU-AS:2053 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./130/2026 INDRAJIT RAY @ ANARAJIT RAY SON OF LAXMAN RAYPERMANENT ADDRESS VILL- DUMARIP.O.BAGHRA, BLOCK- TOLA MOHANPUR P.S.- PATORI DIST.- SAMASTIPUR,BIHAR-848506 PRESENT ADDRESS- C/O MUKTARUDDIN AHMED R D ROAD, ULUBARI, H. NO. 133, P.O. ULUBARI P.S. PALTAN BAZAR DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE SC, NCB. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SAHARIA, MS K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 12.02.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Saharia, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Page No.# 2/6 Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel representing the NCB. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with NDPS P.S. Case No. 34/2022, arising out of NCB Crime No. 14/2022, registered under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Court of the Special Judge, Rangia, Kamrup. 3. The prosecution story is, inter alia, that on 02.06.2022, at about 06:00 hrs, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Shri Phani Narjinari of Guwahati Zonal Unit, received an information from a casual informer that two persons, namely, Nurmahammad Ali and Indrajit Ray will come through NH-15 from Tezpur towards Rangia in a Maruti Gypsy No. AS-01 FA-4617 and they will reach Baihata Chariali between 1400-1700 hrs; that the two persons were carrying huge quantity of Morphine/Heroin; that Shri Rakesh Chandra Shukla, Zonal Director, NCB Guwahati, on the basis of such information, issued an office order dated 02.06.2022, whereby authorized Shri Phani Narjinari as seizing officer; that in pursuance to the said order a NCB team was formed and the same team reached Baihata Chariali at about 1230 hrs on 02.06.2022; that the police team deputed with the District SP along with the NCB team reached near 648 No. Kshudrapalaha L.P. School and approached three persons to be independent witnesses, who agreed to do so; that at about 1500 hrs, the aforesaid Maruti Gypsy was intercepted before the aforesaid school and found 2 persons sitting in the vehicle. The police team & NCB officials introduced themselves to the occupants of the vehicle, whereon, the driver of the vehicle introduced himself as Indrajit Ray and the co-driver introduced himself as Nurmahammad Ali; that thereafter, the two accused persons were taken to Baihata Chariali police station along with the Maruti Gypsy car; that at about 1530 hrs, the Maruti Gypsy car was searched wherein a specially made additional cavity in the body right and left sides of front seats of car was found; that when the cavity was thoroughly searched, 32 nos. of transparent plastic packets concealed in the special cavity were recovered; that when tested the contents of the packets, the same tested positive for Page No.# 3/6 Heroin and the total weight was found to be 16.777 kg; that the two accused persons were arrested on the same day. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the Police registered NDPS P.S. Case No. 34/2022, arising out of NCB Crime No. 14/2022, under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 5. Final complaint dated 28.11.2022, was filed before the Court of the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup, for commission of offence under Section 21(C)/29 and 8(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 6. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is inside the judicial custody for 3 years 8 months 10 days and though the trial has started, out of the 13 listed witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court till date. He further submits that while arresting the accused-applicant, the mandates of Section 41B as well as Section 50 of Cr.PC were not complied with by the arresting authority. He submits that while arresting the accused-applicant, the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC did not contain any grounds of his arrest. He further submits that the Memo of Arrest prepared by the police in terms of Section 41B did not contain any signature or attestation of any witness, neither any of his family members or any respectable member of the locality where the arrest was made. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since the mandatory provisions of Section 41B and Section 50 of Cr.PC were not complied with by the arresting authority at the time of arresting the accused-applicant, the whole arrest process becomes illegal and thereby, giving the accused-applicant an unfettered right to be released on bail. He further submits that long incarceration of the accused-applicant is also a ground for releasing him on bail. He submits that though charges were framed on 23.05.2023, till date, the trial has not progressed in reasonable speed and therefore, keeping the accused-applicant in judicial custody is not justifiable. 7. On the other hand, Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the NCB, submits that huge quantity of more than 16 kgs of Heroin was Page No.# 4/6 recovered from the conscious possession of the accused and his co-accused. He further submits that Section 37 of the NDPS needs to be complied with in considering the bail of the accused-applicant. However, he fairly submits after perusal of the Case Diary, it seems the mandates of Section 41B and Section 50 may not have been complied with, while arresting the accused-applicant in the instant case. 8. This Court has heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the case records, wherein the copy of the Arrest Memo as well as the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC was available. It is clearly seen that no signature of any person is available in the Memo of Arrest relating to the accused-applicant. It is also seen from the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC that no grounds worth mentioning are available in the notice. 9. In the case of D.K. Basu, Ashok K Johri Vs. The State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 SC 610, the Hon’ble Supreme Court lays sown that police personnel carrying out arrest shall prepare a Memo of Arrest at the time of the arrest and such Memo shall be attested by at least one witness. The same has been mandated under Section 41B of the Cr.PC. The aforesaid observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) leaves no room of doubt that the aforesaid procedural requirement as contained in Section 41B of Cr.PC, which has emanated from Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, are mandatory in nature. 10. This Court is of the view that Section 41B, which flowed from the Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India, cannot be overridden merely because of the presence a non obstante Clause in Section 37 of NDPS, 1985. This Court is also of the view that Section 37 of the NDPS, 1985, would be applicable to a case only if the mandatory procedural requirement of Section 41B of Cr.PC is followed. 11. In a case involving serious offence of like nature, which is involved in the instant case, the arresting police authority has to be more cautious to ensure that all mandatory procedural requirement of arrest are followed, so that, the accused does not get the Page No.# 5/6 benefit of failure on the part of the arresting police officer to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement as provided under the Cr.PC as well as Constitution of India. 12. As for notice under Section 50 of the Cr.PC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, has clearly laid down that the Grounds of Arrest are mandatorily required to be provided in a notice under Section 50 Cr.PC and any violation of the same, results in creating a right to the arrestee for getting a bail. 13. In the instant case in hand, as discussed above, it is seen that the required mandatory compliances in both Section 41B and Section 50 of the Cr.PC have been violated by the arresting authority while arresting the accused-applicant. Therefore, the initial arrest being illegal, the accused-applicant gets an unfettered right to be release on bail. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions and taking into account the violation of the mandatory provisions of Cr.PC, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused- applicant is liable to be released on bail. Therefore, it is directed that the accused- applicant to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two local sureties of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused-applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; (ii) that the accused-applicant 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 Trial Court; (iv) that the accused-applicant shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, Page No.# 6/6 mobile number, and other contact details before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup; (v) that the accused-applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangia, Kamrup, without prior permission of the said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court, the accused-applicant shall submit his address and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and (vi) that the accused-applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail. 15. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Bail Application stands disposed of, as allowed. 16. TCR to be sent back immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant