Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs The State Of Assam on 5 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010093972025
2025:GAU-AS:5543
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1400/2025
AJGAR ALI
S/O- BASAR ALI
R/O-KANALMARA PT 1 , PS- SOUTH SALMARA, DIST- SOUTH SALMARA
-MANKACHAR,ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP.RESENTED BY P.P, ASSAM,
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A Z AHMED, A. KHALEK
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 05-05-2025
Heard Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
respondent.
Page No.# 2/13
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for
grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection
South Salmara P.S. Case No. 32/2024 (Corresponding to G.R. No. 80/2024) u/s
22(c) of NDPS Act.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that
the present accused/petitioner is innocent and is no way connected with the
alleged offence. He got arrested in connection with the case on 12.02.2024 and
since 1 year 2 months he is in custody. But, prosecution could not examine any
of the witnesses out of 8 nos. of witnesses.
4. Mr. Ahmed further submitted that at the time of arrest also the petitioner
was not provided with any intimation regarding his arrest neither in the Arrest
Memo nor at the time of issuing Notice u/s 47 BNSS. He also submitted that the
family members were also not served with any notice u/s 48 of BNSS intimating
grounds of arrest of the petitioner. He further submitted that as there is no
ground of arrest mentioned in the said Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice
under Sections 47 of BNSS, which itself is in violation of Article 21 & 22(1) of
the Constitution of India. It is the mandate of the Constitution of India that
while arresting the accused person, he as well as his family members should be
intimated the grounds of arrest.
4.a. In this context, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, also cited
the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Page No.# 3/13
(i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.
(ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254.
5. Mr. Ahmed also submitted that though in the case of commercial quantity,
the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act follows, but in cases where there is violation of
the constitutional provision as mandated under Articles 21 & 22 of the
Constitution of India, the statutory restriction will not affect the power of the
Court to grant bail in such circumstances. More so, non-mentioning of grounds
of arrest while issuing the Arrest Memo and the Notice under Section 47 of
BNSS, is itself in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and hence,
without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present
petitioner is entitled to bail.
6. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this
regard that the petitioner was caught red handed and the recovery was made
from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner and huge amount of
contraband was recovered from him. Mr. Goswami further submitted that from
the Forwarding Report it is seen that present petitioner is a habitual offender
and he also earlier got arrested in similar kind of offence.
7. Mr. Goswami further submitted that the case is of commercial quantity,
and hence, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow. Accordingly, he
submitted that the case is still under investigation and hence, at this stage, it
cannot be held that the accused person is not guilty of the offence or he will not
Page No.# 4/13
commit similar kind of offence, if he is granted with the privilege of bail as
required under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submitted that
the mentioning of grounds of arrest in case of a person caught red handed was
never argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court nor was pursued or considered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing the judgments in cases of Pankaj
Bansal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576; Prabir
Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254; and
Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 269. In those cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the judgments
without considering the issue of necessity of informing the grounds of arrest to
a person caught red handed and thus, applying the “doctrine of sub-silentio” it
can be very well said that the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha (supra) & Vihaan Kumar
(supra) are not a precedent so far the cases where the accused person got
arrested red handed.
9. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
bail prayer of the present petitioner cannot be considered at this stage on the
ground of non-furnishing of the ground of arrest to the accused/petitioner. From
the facts and circumstances of this case itself, it is sufficient to hold that the
petitioner was well aware about the grounds when he was caught red handed
along with the contraband. Accordingly, Mr. Goswami submitted that the bail
prayer of the present petitioner may be rejected.
Page No.# 5/13
10. In this context, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, further
relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Jaseela
Shaji Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2024) 9 SCC 53 and basically
relied on paragraph Nos. 20, 25 & 72 of the judgment, which read as under:
“20. It is immaterial whether the detenu already knew about their contents or not.
In Mehrunissa v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 709: 1981 SCC (Cri) 592] it was
held that the fact that the detenu was aware of the contents of the documents not
furnished was immaterial and non-furnishing of the copy of the seizure list was held to
be fatal. To appreciate this point one has to bear in mind that the detenu is in jail and
has no access to his own documents. In Mohd. Zakir v. Delhi Administration [(1982) 3
SCC 216: 1982 SCC (Cri) 695] it was reiterated that it being a constitutional imperative
for the detaining authority to give the documents relied on and referred to in the order
of detention pari passu the grounds of detention, those should be furnished at the
earliest so that the detenu could make an effective representation immediately instead
of waiting for the documents to be supplied with. The question of demanding the
documents was wholly irrelevant and the infirmity in that regard was violative of
constitutional safeguards enshrined in Article 22(5).”
25. This Court further went on to hold that it is immaterial whether the detenu already
knew about their contents or not. This Court reiterated the position that it being a
constitutional imperative for the detaining authority to give the documents relied on
and referred to in the order of detention pari passu the grounds of detention. It has
been held that there is no question of demanding the documents.
72. We may only reiterate what has been laid down in the earlier judgments of this
Court that the Prison Authorities should ensure that the representations are sent to the
Competent Authorities immediately after the receipt thereof. In the present era of
technological development, the said representation can be sent through email within a
day. It is further needless to reiterate that the Competent Authority should decide such
representation with utmost expedition so that the valuable right guaranteed to the
detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is not denied. In the matters pertaining
to personal liberty of the citizens, the Authorities are enjoined with a constitutional
obligation to decide the representation with utmost expedition. Each day’s delay
matters in such a case.”
11. Citing the above referred judgment, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that it is fit case wherein the bail can be granted to the present
Page No.# 6/13
accused/petitioner on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to them in the
Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS.
12. Mr. Ahmed also submitted that the issue of “caught red handed” is still pending
before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).
17132/2024, arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
25.11.2024 in CRWP No. 3533 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bomay (Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), which is
already reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for pronouncement of judgment,
however the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already released the accused person on
interim bail till disposal of the said appeal.
13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides
and also perused the materials available on record as well as the judgments cited by
the learned counsels for both sides.
14. From the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, it is seen
that basically the issue raised by the petitioner is the non-communication of the
grounds of arrest to the present petitioner in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice
under Section 47 of BNSS. It is the admitted fact that the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the present petitioner as well as to his relatives as required under
the provision of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of
Pankaj Bansal (supra), Prabir Purkayastha (supra) & Vihaan Kumar (supra), as
referred above, had discussed in detail in regards to non-communication of the
grounds of arrest to the accused person and it is considered in various paragraphs of
the judgments that non-compliance of same is in violation of Article 21 & 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.
Page No.# 7/13
15. Further it is a fact that in the judgments, referred to hereinabove, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had not discussed the issue of caught red handed and no distinction
was made in those judgments in regards to the arrest of the accused person. But, in
paragraph No. 31 of the judgment of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that all Courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold
fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was
alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in
one way or the other. For ready reference, paragraph No. 31 of the said judgment
read as under:
“31. The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated information given regarding
the appellant’s arrest with the grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of
non- supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is
completely uncalled for. All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold
fundamental rights. Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was
alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in
one way or the other. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to
grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised: (a) that the arrested
person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of
grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention
is concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging
that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the
pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court
that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore,
the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous.”
16. In the 2nd part of the judgment of Vihaan Kumar (supra), it is also been
observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “the purpose of inserting Section 50A
of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about
the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person
it to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to
secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The
arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy
Page No.# 8/13
access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be
available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of
engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on
bail at the earliest.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Enforcement
Vs. Subhash Sharma, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 240, in paragraph No.
8 of the judgment, has observed that ” once a Court, while dealing with a bail
application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21
and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the
accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail
application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such
cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental
rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.”
18. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that the High Courts or the
Subordinate Courts should decide the matters on the basis of law as it stands
and unless specifically directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to await an
outcome of a reference or review petition as the case may be. In that context
also, a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court can be relied on which was reported
in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 114 (Union Territory of Ladakh Vs. Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference), wherein in paragraph No. 35 of the
judgment, it has been held as under:
“35. We are seeing before us judgments and orders by High Courts not deciding cases
on the ground that the leading judgment of this Court on this subject is either referred
to a larger Bench or a review petition relating thereto is pending. We have also come
across examples of High Courts refusing deference to judgments of this Court on the
Page No.# 9/13score that a later Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay
down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed
to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically
directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the
case may be. It is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by
stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced
with conflicting judgments by Benches of equal strength of this Court, it is the earlier
one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5-Judge Bench in National
Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 6805. The High Courts, of
course, will do so with careful regard to the facts and circumstances of the case before
it.”
19. So, from the discussion made above, it is seen that as on today, there is
no such distinction made for consideration of bail in cases where the accused
persons were caught red handed or subsequently arrested. But, the Hon’ble
Apex Court in all the cases, as referred above, had expressed the view that non-
furnishing of grounds of arrest to the accused person as well as to his family
members, relatives or friends is in complete violation of mandate of Article 21 &
22(1) of the Constitution of India.
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), as
relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held in paragraph Nos. 19,
21 & 48 of the judgment as under:
“19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for
allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other
offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in
writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person
as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the
arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information
would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the
police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting
the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
Page No.# 10/13India.
21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process
of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not
validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality 3 (2000) 8 SCC 590committed at the time of
arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.
48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the
phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the
arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing
any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from
causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any
manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person
arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all
such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused.
Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused
all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending
himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would
invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which
are general in nature.”
21. Further, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held has under:
“14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a
formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the
Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of
every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon
as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it
would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article
22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided
in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article
22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are
not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his
Page No.# 11/13fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate
of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also
violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be
rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest
as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated,
the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.”
22. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no
mention of grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice issued
to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS, and except the
name, address and the case numbers, there is no mention about any other
particulars of the offence as well as the grounds of arrest. So, from the proviso
of Section 47 of BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in such cases, in spite of the
statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the
considered opinion that for the violation of the constitution mandate contained
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the arrest of the petitioner is
vitiated and it may be a sufficient ground to consider his bail application in spite
of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which provides the restriction in granting
bail in the cases of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
23. In view of the entire discussions made above, it is the opinion of this Court
that the period of incarceration undergone by the accused/petitioner may not be
a good ground for considering his bail application at this stage as the case is still
under investigation. However, considering the fact that the grounds of arrest
were not communicated to the petitioner or mentioned in the Arrest Memo as
well as in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47
of BNSS, this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the
Page No.# 12/13
accused/petitioner.
24. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that
one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned
Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, the accused/petitioner, namely, Ajgar
Ali, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the accused/petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned
Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, on each and every date to
be fixed by the Court;
(ii) that the accused/petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that the accused/petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN
Card before the learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar;
and
(iv) that the accused/petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar, without prior
permission.
Page No.# 13/13
24. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link