Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/9 vs The State Of Assam on 29 April, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010005572025
2025:GAU-AS:5191
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./102/2025
SRI JOHORLAL MORANG
S/O LATE BEDAL MORANG
VILL- BORDUBI CHANONG
P.S. PANIGAON, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K NEOG, MR. S K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 29.04.2025
Heard Mr. S. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for
the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Page No.# 2/9
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail to the petitioner
i.e. Johorlal Morang, who has been arrested on 08.06.2024 in
connection with North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No.152/2024
registered under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act arising out of G.R.
Case No.400/2024.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 06-06-2024, one Sri Hirak
Jyoti Lahan of Khelmati O.P. under North Lakhimpur Police Station has
received an information from a reliable informer at around 10 P.M. that
a huge amount of Heroin in a Maruti Suzuki Swift Vehicle bearing
Regd. No. AS07BM6450 on which a GDE was made in Khelmati OP
GDE No. 117 dated 06-06-2024 and after informing the same to S.P.
and Addl. S.P. (Crime) North Lakhimpur and O.C. North Lakhimpur P.S.,
a search team headed by Ins. Tulumoni Dowarah along with some
other police personnel proceeded to N.L. Town by using two Govt.
Vehicle(BOLERO) bearing Regd. No. AS-30-8868 & AS-30-9029 to
search the swift vehicle and about 10.30 P.M. noticed the said vehicle
at Charaimoria Bypass coming from Lilabari side to chauldhuwa which
was chased down infront of Chauldhwa O.P. after informing the O.C.
North Lakhimpur P.S. Thereafter, they detained the persons namely 1.
Maruf Ahmed Khan, 29 years, son of Aftab Ahmed Khan, of village
Kaliganj, Dist- Karimganj, 2. Hussain Ahmed, 34 years, son of
Fakaruddin Tapadar of village Alam Khani, Karimganj, 3. Ifzal Hussain,
19 years, son of Lt. Burhan Uddin of village Ala Kalipur, Badarpur,
Karimganj and search the vehicle thoroughly. During search they
revealed that they carried 45 packets (soap case box) Heroin from
Hojai and delivered 20 packets (soap case Box) to a person at Laluk
Page No.# 3/9
and another 25 packets(soap case Box) delivered to namely Smti
Tagar Patir and her husband Sri Jayanta Patir, of Chaboti Lohar Dolong,
P.S. North Lakhimpur, Dist- Lakhimpur, Assam and also seized cash
Rupees 5,900 (Five Thousand Nine Hundred) INR and three mobile
phone in front of Chauldhowa O.P. in presence of witness. After
completion of seizing procedure the police team had proceeded to
Tagar Patir house along with seized items and the detained persons at
12.15 A.M. and reached at 1.05 A.M., at the mean time Addl. S.P.
(Crime) reached the PO and gave a written authority letter for
operation of entry, search, seizer, arrest etc. during the search no any
suspected items were found at her house but seized 3 mobile phone
and two numbers of two wheeler bearing regd No, AS-07-U-5176 &
AS-07-Y-4041. On questioning Tagar Patir and her husband Jayanta
Patir revealed that on 06-06-2024 at about 8.20 P.M. they took 25
packets of Heroin from Maruf Ahmed Khan and his compainion. Her
husband Jayanta Patir kept the heroin in his father-in-law house
namely Jaharlal Morang of Bordubi Chanong, Panigaon. After getting
the information the search team were proceeded to Bordubi Chanong
and reached at about 3.40 A.M. lead by Tagar Patir, Jayanta Patir and
Maruf Ahmed Khan. In the mean time, O.C. Panigaon arrived at the
spot with staff and three numbers of independent witnesses namely 1.
Manuranjan Pegu son of Gesia Pegu of Kahidhuwar, P.S.-Panigaon, 2.
Nameswar Pegu, son of Lt. Patang Pegu of bordubi, Panigaon, and 3.
Lakhindra Doley son of Lambudhar Doley of Bardubi Chanong,
Panigaon During Search 25 Packets (291.69 gram) of (soap case Box)
Heroin were found in front of independent witnesses and also seized
Page No.# 4/9
one Karbon keypad mobile phone. After completion of all official and
lawful formalities a case was registered and the petitioner was
arrested. Accordingly, the instant bail application has been filed.
4. Mr. S. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the arresting authority while arresting the petitioner has not informed
the grounds of arrest to him and as such, the fundamental and
constitutional rights guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India has been totally infringed by the arresting
authority. He accordingly submits that the petitioner is entitled to be
released forthwith.
5. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Assam fairly draws the attention of the Court from the case
records that the Notice issued under Section 50 of Cr.P.C to the
petitioner as well as the Memo of Arrest does not indicate that the
grounds of such arrest has been informed to the petitioner at the time
of his arrest.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
Counsels for both the parties and also perused the material available
on record.
7. The primary ground urged in this bail application is as regard
non-compliance of the constitutional and fundamental right of
guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Apt to
refer to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as
hereunder:-
Page No.# 5/9
“21. Protection of life and personal liberty.–No
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
22. Protection against arrest and detention in
certain cases.–(1) No person who is arrested shall be
detained in custody without being informed, as soon as
may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be
denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal
practitioner of his choice.”
8. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that an
arrestee has a constitutional and fundamental right under the
Constitution of India to be informed about the grounds of his arrest at
the time of his arrest.
9. In the present case apt to refer to the notice issued to the
petitioner under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as hereunder: –
“NOTICE
U/S- 50 C.R.P.C.
To,
Shri: Jagalal Morang
Age:59 years
S/o- Late Dota Morang
Village- 11 Mile
Post Office: Kuhiarbari
Police Station: Panigaon
District: Lakhimpur
Reference: North Lakhimpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024
U/S 21(c)/29 NDPS Act.
You are hereby information that you are under arrest in
Page No.# 6/9connection with above reference case is non-bailable to Police. So, you
are forwarded to the Court. You may submit petition before Hon’ble
Court for your bail.
SIGNATURE OF ARRESTEE
SIGNATURE OF
ARRESTING OFFICER”
10. Perusal of the aforesaid notice indicates that except the
name of the petitioner and case reference, no other information as
regards the offence or the grounds of arrest is intimated to the
petitioner in this notice.
11. Apt also to refer to the memo of arrest which reads as
hereunder: –
“ARREST MEMO
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORDER IN
WRIT PETITION NO. (CRL) 539 OF 1986
AND WRIT PETITION (CRL) No. 592 OF 1987
(1) Name and particulars of person arrested:
Sri Jagalal Morang, age- 59 years
S/o- Lt. Dota Morang
Vill- 11 Mile, Panigaon
P.S. Panigaon
Dist- Lakhimpur, Assam.
2. Circumstances/P.S/Case/
GDE Reference of Arrest:- NL PS C/No-152/24, u/s-
21(c)/29 NDPS Act
3. Place of Arrest:- NL PS
4. Date and Time of Arrest: On 08/06/24 @ 8.00 am.
5. Injuries present at time of Arrest:- As per inspection memo.
(If yes, make Inspection Memo on reverse)
Page No.# 7/9
6. Signature and Name of Relative/
Witness to Arrest (Atleast one)
7. Signature of Arrested person:-
8. Signature & Full Name of Arresting-
Officer (Also add. Any Note “Toka” if reqd.)”
12. Perusal of the memo of arrest also indicates that except the
name and particulars of the petitioner, date and time of arrest and
case reference, no other information as regards the offence or grounds
of arrest is mentioned. Similarly, the Inspection Memo which is also
reproduced hereunder for ready reference does not indicate any
particulars as regards the grounds of arrest being intimated to the
petitioner: –
“INSPECTION MEMO
HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORDER IN
WRIT PETITION NO. (CRL) 539 OF 1986
AND WRIT PETITION (CRL) No. 592 OF 1987
(1) Name of Police Officer: WSI Sunmoni Gogoi.
(2) Name of Arrestee with full particulars, Age,
Sex, etc: Sri Jagalal Morang, age- 59 years
Vill- 11 Mile, Panigaon
P.S. Panigaon
Dist- Lakhimpur, Assam.
(3) Date & time of arrest: On 08.06.2024 at 8.00 AM
(4) Cash Ref./ GDE Ref. etc. :- NLPS C/No. 152/2024, u/s
21(C)/29
NDPS Act.
(5) Injury whether Major/Minor:- No injury
(6) Doctors where Medical Aids provided :- Nowboicha CHC
(7) Sign. Of Arrestee:-
Sign. Of Police Officer who made Arrest”
Page No.# 8/9
13. It appears from the materials placed before this Court that
there are no materials available in the case record to indicate that the
grounds of arrest have been informed to the petitioner at the time of
his arrest. Moreover, the case record does not indicate any
contemporaneous record indicating that the grounds of arrest were
informed to the accused.
14. There is no doubt that the requirement of informing a person
arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India. Non-compliance of Article 22(1) will
be a violation of the constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed
by the said Article. That apart, it will amount to a violation of Article 21
of the Constitution of India. Hence, such arrest shall stand vitiated.
When a violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India is
established, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the
Court to grant bail. In fact, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order
the release of the accused when a violation of Article 22(1) is
established (Refer:- Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr.,
reported in 2025 SCConline 269). In the present case it is absolutely
clear that the grounds of arrest was not informed to the petitioner at
the time of his arrest, hence, the arrest of the petitioner is totally
illegal. As such, the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated. That being
so, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 does not affect the
power of this Court to grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, further
detention of the petitioner in the custody is totally unjustified.
Page No.# 9/9
15. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is liable to be released forthwith.
Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.
50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) only with two sureties of like
amount, provided that one surety has to be a Government Servant to
the satisfaction of the Special Judge (NDPS), Lakhimpur, North
Lakhimpur under the conditions that the petitioner:
(a) That the accused/petitioner shall regularly appear before the
learned trial Court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till
the case is disposed of;
(b) 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; and
(c) That the accused/petitioner shall refrain from committing
any offences similar to the one of which he is accused;
16. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link