Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam on 13 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010038042025
2025:GAU-AS:5848
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./550/2025
ABDUL JALIL @ BOTAI
S/O-ARJID ALI, VILL-PANIGHAT,
P. S. -KARIMGANJ, DISTRICT-SRIBHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, K MAINUDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 13.05.2025
Heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of
Page No.# 2/11
bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Special
NDPS Case No. 74/2024, arising out of Karimganj P.S. Case No. 427/2024, under
Sections 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act, pending before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sribhumi.
3. Scanned copy of the Trial Court Record has already been received and I
have perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that
the present accused/petitioner is innocent and nothing has been seized from his
conscious possession. He got arrested in connection with this case on
25.06.2024 and since then, he is in custody. The charge-sheet of the case has
already been filed but till date, the charge has not been framed by the learned
Trial Court and the case is still at the stage of production. More so, the present
petitioner was arrested in connection with this case only on the basis of the
statement of the co-accused recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act. However,
it is the settled position that the statement of the co-accused or the voluntary
statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible at the
time of trial or that cannot be the basis for conviction as laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
[(2021) 4 SCC 1], wherein it has been held that the statement of the co-
accused person recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act is not tenable in the eye of
law and it cannot be the basis of the conviction.
4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that
while arresting the present petitioner, the grounds of arrest were not
Page No.# 3/11
communicated or mentioned in the Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo and the
Notice issued to him under Section 47 of BNSS, which is mandatorily required
and non-compliance of the same is in violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. More so, the Notice under Section 48 of BNSS was also
served to the relatives/family members of the petitioner intimating 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.
5. In this context also, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner,
cited 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.
6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, 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
Page No.# 4/11
Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo as well as in 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.
7. Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard
that during investigation, the I.O. collected sufficient incriminating materials
against the present accused/ petitioner and considering the same, the charge-
sheet has been filed against him. He further submitted that the I.O. has to
investigate the case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused in absence
of any other materials available before him and during investigation only, it has
come out that the present accused/petitioner is involved in the alleged offence.
He further submitted that the case of Tofan Singh (supra) does not bar the
Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation on the basis of statement
of the co-accused or on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 67
NDPS Act. It is the present petitioner from whose possession the alleged
contraband was recovered. He further submitted that there may not be any
written communication for grounds of arrest, but from the materials available in
the case record, it is very much evident that the petitioner was well aware about
the allegation brought against him and in the forwarding report, the same has
already been mentioned and hence, he raised objection in granting bail to the
accused/ petitioner.
8. Further Mr. Lahkar 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
Page No.# 5/11
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. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both
sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with
the petition, more particularly, the Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo and Notice
issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 BNSS. It is
accordingly seen that while issuing the Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo and
Notice, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioner along with
the case number as well as the Sections under which he is arrested are being
mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in
the same. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not
intimated to the accused/petitioner or to his family members at the time of his
arrest which is a statutory right of an accused and it is also a constitutional
mandate that the person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest
under which he was taken into custody of police.
10. It is the contention of the petitioner that non-communication of the
grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 47(1) of BNSS, 2023, rendering the
arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioner invalid. The
accused/petitioner has the fundamental and statutory right to be informed
Page No.# 6/11
about the grounds of arrest in writing and copy of such written ground of arrest
have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
any explanation. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested
accused/petitioner would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-
sheeted.
11. 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 India.
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
Page No.# 7/11remand 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.”
12. 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
Page No.# 8/11fundamental 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 fundamental 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.”
13. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no
mention of grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo, Inspection Memo and Notice
issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 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 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.
Page No.# 9/11
14. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar
(supra) has also held that even after filing of the charge-sheet, the arrest and
the detention will be considered as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 21
& 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph
No. 16 of the said judgment has held as under:
“16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st
respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly
remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His
submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the
order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such
arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount
to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it
is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the
arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person
based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order
of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional,
being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We
cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article
22.”
15. 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 has
already been charge-sheeted finding prima facie materials against the present
petitioner. However, considering the fact that the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to the petitioner or mentioned in the Arrest Memo, Inspection
Page No.# 10/11
Memo and Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47
BNSS, this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the
accused/petitioner.
16. 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, Sribhumi, the accused/petitioner, namely, Abdul Jalil @ Botai, be
enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:
(i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Special
Judge, Sribhumi, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court;
(ii) that the 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 petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card
before the Special Judge, Sribhumi; and
(iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special
Judge, Sribhumi, without prior permission.
17. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of.
Page No.# 11/11
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant