Nayan Chandra Nath vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2025

Gauhati High Court

Nayan Chandra Nath vs The State Of Assam on 26 August, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010177272025




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2597/2025

            NAYAN CHANDRA NATH
            S/O LT. ADHIR CHANDRA NATH
            RESIDENT OF COLLEGE ROAD, WARD NO. 15, PS DHUBRI, DISTRICT
            DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN 783324

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR,MS J A RAHMAN,MS P
BARMAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

Date : 26.08.2025

1. Heard Mrd. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.
Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been field by the petitioner,
namely, Nayan Chandra Nath who has been detained behind the bars since
05.02.2024 in connection with Special Case No. 447/2024 arising out of Dhubri P.S.
Page No.# 2/4

Case No. 34/2024 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 presently pending
before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.02.2024, one Kapil Ch. Das
had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Dhubri Police Station, inter alia,
alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that a large
quantity of contraband has been kept in the house of one Nayan Chandra Das
(present petitioner). On receipt of the said information, a police team was constituted
and it proceeded towards the house of the petitioner. The house of the petitioner was
searched in presence of witnesses and during search operation, 30 numbers of cough
syrup bottles containing codeine phosphate, 240 numbers of tablets of Pyeevon Spas
Plus Capsules containing tramadol and 140 numbers of tablets containing Nitrazepam
were recovered therefrom.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has
been languishing behind the bars since 05.02.2024 and till date only three prosecution
witnesses have been examined. He submits that at the time of the arrest of the
petitioner though notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. was served on him, however, it did
not contain any grounds of arrest therein. He submits that it only contains the police
station case number and the penal provisions involved in the case and no basic facts
were mentioned therein. He also submits that there has been a violation of the
fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as well as statutory requirement under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. He submits
that on that count only the petitioner is entitled to get bail. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court
in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799”.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly
conceded that though the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. was served on the
petitioner, it does not contain the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the
Page No.# 3/4

petitioner in this case.

6. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana” (supra), the non-compliance of the requirement under Article 22(1) vitiates
the arrest of an accused and such an arrestee would be entitled to get bail on that
count only.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials available on record including the scanned
copy of the case record of Special Case No. 447/2024.

8. Since, apparently on perusal of the notice served on the petitioner under
Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., it appears that it is devoid of any grounds of arrest and no
basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the aforesaid has been
mentioned therein, mere serving a copy of notice under Section 50 of the petitioner
without mentioning therein grounds of arrest is a clear violation of the constitutional
mandate provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

9. Therefore, in view of the above observations made by the Apex Court in the
case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ” (supra), the petitioner is entitled to get
bail on that count only.

10. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhubri with following
conditions:-

i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special Case No.
447/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Dhubri;

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so
required by the Trial Court;

Page No.# 4/4

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
Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;

iv. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court
without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by
the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact
details during such leave before the Trial Court; and

v. 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 before the Trial Court;

11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant