Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam on 16 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010118682025
2025:GAU-AS:9195
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1826/2025
SAKINUR RAHMAN
S/O- LATE ABDUL JABBAR@ LATE ABDUL JOBBAR.
VILL.- MADHUSOULMARI PT- I,
P.S GAURIPUR, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE LD. P.P., ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S ISLAM, A R MONDAL,MR A HAWARI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/8
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 16.07.2025
Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.
Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
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 with
Golakganj P.S. Case No. 20/2025, under Section 61(2) of BNS read with Section
22(C) of the NDPS Act read with Section 13(1) of the Assam Cattle Preservation
Act, 2021 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960.
3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the
alleged offence. Nothing has been seized from the conscious possession of the
present accused/ petitioner and he was only the driver of the vehicle and was
not aware about the contraband which was alleged to have been kept in the
vehicle at the time of interception. He further submitted that the accused is in
custody for last 160 days and thus, the I.O. got sufficient time/opportunity to
interrogate him keeping him in custody and hence, his further custodial
interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. He further
submitted that the co-accused, who was also arrested in connection with this
Page No.# 3/8
cae, has already been granted bail by this Court vide Order dated 08.05.2025,
passed in Bail Appln. No. 1278/2025, and hence, considering the case of the
present petitioner on the same footing, he may also be released on bail on the
ground of parity.
5. Mr. Islam also raised the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest while
issuing Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS as well as in the Arrest Memo at
the time of his arrest. He accordingly submitted that the grounds of arrest were
not communicated to the present accused/petitioner in the Arrest Memo as well
as in the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 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 the accused/petitioner as well as his family members
should be intimated the grounds of arrest. He accordingly submitted that all the
full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the
accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it
would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the
statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself.
6. In support of his submission, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner,
relied on the following decisions:
(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.
Page No.# 4/8
7. Mr. Bothakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard
that the accused/petitioner cannot be granted bail only on the ground of parity
as there was no recovery of any contraband from the conscious possession of
the co-accused, which itself is reflected in paragraph No. 3 of the order dated
08.05.2025, passed in Bail Appln. No. 1278/2025, wherein it has been clearly
mentioned that he was arrested in connection with this case only on the ground
that the vehicle which was seized in connection with this case was parked in
fount of his house. But, here in the instant case, the alleged contraband was
recovered from the conscious possession of the accused/petitioner along with
other co-accused persons from the vehicle which was driven by the present
petitioner.
8. Further Mr. Borthakur submitted that the case is of commercial in nature
and hence, rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition
has to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and there has to
be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on
bail. But, from the materials available in the Case Record and Case Diary, it
cannot be said that the present petitioner is innocent, he has not committed
such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if
he is released on bail. Thus, he raised vehement objection and submitted that
considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to
enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage.
9. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that it is not a case that the accused was
subsequently arrested in connection with this case, but he was caught red
Page No.# 5/8
handed and the contrabands were recovered from his conscious possession and
thus, it could not be stated that the accused/petitioner was not aware about his
arrest or the grounds of arrest. More so, there was sufficient compliance of
providing the Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS as well as the Arrest
Memo wherein the accused had put his signature. In that context, Mr. Borthakur
further relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of
Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
[Criminal Appeal No. 2808 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7746 of
2025] and basically relied on paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of the said judgment,
wherein it has been held that for compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution
of India, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the
offence and the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person
to understand as to whether he has been arrested. Paragraph Nos. 27 & 28 of
the said judgment reads as under:
“27. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be
communicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly explained in Vihaan
Kumar (supra). On learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be
in a position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the
High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the information will enable the
arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. For these
reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must
be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible.
28. For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities
to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to
enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to
be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge
framed by the Court for the trial of a case.”
10. Mr. Borthakur accordingly raised objection and submitted that the case is
still under investigation and some of the co-accused persons are yet to be
nabbed in connection with this case and hence, further custodial interrogation of
Page No.# 6/8
the present petitioner may be required for the interest of investigation.
11. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides
and also on perusal of the Case Diary, it is seen that the I.O. has collected
sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner, who
has been arrested in a case of commercial quantity. As stated above, in a case
of commercial quantity, rigor of Section 37 will follow wherein the twin condition
has to be satisfied before granting bail to an accused person. But, from perusal
of the Case Diary, it is seen that there are sufficient evidence so far collected by
the I.O. against the present accused/petitioner and accordingly, there cannot be
any reason to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence and will not
repeat or commit the same offence while on bail.
12. Further it is seen that the case of the co-accused person, who was earlier
granted bail by this Court, cannot be considered on the same footing to allow
the present accused/petitioner to go on bail on the ground of parity.
13. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
regards to communication of grounds of arrest, it is seen that the
accused/petitioner was arrested/caught red handed and the entire contraband
was recovered from his conscious possession along with other co-accused
persons. Thus, it cannot be said that he was not aware about the grounds of
arrest when the entire contraband was alleged to have been recovered from his
conscious possession. It is a fact that there is no mention of detail of the
offence alleged to have been committed by the accused while issuing the
Notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, but the accused was well aware about
the reasons for his arrest and he also put his signature accordingly. Further,
Page No.# 7/8
from the rejection order passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhubri, it also
reveals that on interrogation, the present accused/petitioner, along with other
co-accused persons, had confessed regarding their involvement in smuggling of
cattle from Bangladesh border and suspected contraband from Boxirhat, West
Bengal and all the articles were packed and seized on the spot itself in presence
of the witnesses and the whole process was also videographed. Thus, from
these observations of the learned Special Judge also, it is seen that the
accused/petitioner was very much aware about the offence which is alleged to
have been committed by him as well as the grounds of arrest.
14. In the light of the discussions made above and also considering the nature
and gravity of the offence, vis-à-vis the materials so far collected by the I.O.,
this Court is of the opinion that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
applies in the present case, and the twin conditions for grant of bail remain
unsatisfied. Further, mere non-mentioning of detailed particulars of the alleged
offence in the Notices issued under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, in a
case where the accused was apprehended at the spot and the contraband was
recovered from his conscious possession, cannot by itself be a ground for grant
of bail, especially when the materials on record reflect that the accused was
fully aware of the reasons for his arrest. The constitutional requirement under
Article 22(1) mandates only that the grounds of arrest be communicated in a
manner sufficient to enable the arrestee to understand the nature of the arrest,
which appears to have been duly complied with in the present case. Moreover,
in view of the fact that the investigation is still in progress and certain co-
accused persons are yet to be apprehended, this Court finds that further
custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may be necessary for a
fair and effective investigation. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected.
Page No.# 8/8
15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
16. The Case Diary be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant