Gauhati High Court
Priyamanish Roy vs The Union Of India on 22 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010148652025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2172/2025
PRIYAMANISH ROY
S/O- ARUN KUMAR ROY,
R/O-VILL.- NARSINGAR, P.O.-BIMANGHAR, P.S.- AIRPORT, DIST.-WEST
TRIPURA, TRIPURA, PIN-799015.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTICS CONTROL
BUREAU (NCB)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z ALAM, MR. J ISLAM,R ISLAM,P. DAS,P ROY,MS. S
NAZNEEN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS
ORDER
Date : 22.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, NCB.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed
Page No.# 2/5
by the petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Priyamanish Roy, who stated to be in
under trial detention since 17.03.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No.
133/2023 (Corresponding to NCB Crime No.05/2023) under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C) & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
3. The case is stated to be at the stage of trial and pending before
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M),
Guwahati.
4. Mr. Z. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner taking the Court
through the materials, submits that 5(five) accused persons were charge-
sheeted and out of which 4(four) accused persons have been granted
bail by this Court.
5. It is submitted that three of them were granted bail on the ground
of violation of the procedural requirements under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India pertaining to arrest and another accused was
granted bail on account of delay of the trial.
6. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
only 3 witnesses have been examined so far in the trial. The copy of
order dated 16.06.2025, passed by this Court in B.A. No.1635/2022
granting bail to co-accused Jitul Ali has been placed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that violation of
aforesaid constitutional provisions would entitle the present accused to
bail in terms of the law laid down at Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269
and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024
Page No.# 3/5
SCC Online SC 934.
8. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing, NCB has
taken the Court through the memorandum of arrest pertaining to the
present accused and in the context of the same submits decision of this
Court vide order dated 14.07.2025 in B.A. No. 1918/2025.
9. The scanned copy from the trial court as well as the case diary of
investigation have been received.
10. It is contended on behalf of the accused seeking bail that notice
under Section 50 Cr.P.C. (as it existed then at the time of his arrest on
18.03.2023) did not contain the grounds of arrest. The certified copy of
the same has been annexed with the bail petition. The contents of the
said notice may be reproduced as follows-
Notice U/S 50 Cr.P.C.
Shri: Priyamanish Roy
S/o: Arun kumar Roy
Village: Narsingar
Post Office : Bimanghar
Police Station : Airport
District/State: West Tripua
Case No.: 05/2023
U/S: 8(c) to be read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as
Amended)
You are hereby informed that you are arrested in connection with the above
reference case and the case is non-bailable. So, you are forwarded to the Court.
You may submit petition before the Hon’ble Coiurt for your bail.
Signature of Arrestee Signature of
I.O.
11. On these specific grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the accused may be granted bail at this stage. He further
Page No.# 4/5
submits that in this case, except the present petitioner, the other co-
accused have already been enlarged on bail.
12. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing, NCB submits that the nature of the
allegation is very serious with considerable haul of narcotics and falling in
the quantity of commercial quantity and that rigours of Section 37 of the
Act is fully applied thereby barring the bail. The scanned copy of the trial
court record was received.
13. I have perused of page 47 of the scanned copy of TCR, the copy of
the notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and it tallies with one submitted along
with bail petition. There is no doubt the allegation and the materials
indicated are of the serious nature pertaining to alleged drug trafficking
and the quantity involved also falls under the rigour of commercial
quantity prima facie thereby attracting the rigour of Section 37 of NDPS
Act. However, as contended by the petitioner cited, I find upon perusing
the notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. furnished to the accused at the time
of his arrest – that the specific grounds of arrest have not been
enumerated therein at all. The nature of the notice is hand and
mechanical. Perhaps that was the format at the time of the accused was
arrested. Nevertheless, despite arrest being on 18.03.2023, it would be
governed by law laid down in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan
Kumar (supra).
14. In a nutshell, the principle laid down is that unless grounds of
arrest, in reasonable details and specific to the arrested accused are
furnished, constitutional rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India would be violated and the same would constitute a fatal procedural
infirmity in the arrest and any detention pursuant to such arrest shall also
Page No.# 5/5
become untenable. It was held that in such situation the accused would
be entitled to bail and even if there are some statutory restrictions on
bail (for example Section 37 of NDPS Act), the same would not come by
way of the accused being granted bail.
15. In the instant case, in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, the notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. did not meet the
stipulated standard as per law laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra),
thereby rendering the continued detention of the accused untenable.
16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
two suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.
The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the
petitioners:
(a) shall not abscond;
(b) shall not in any manner indulge in any activity of consuming or
peddling illegal drugs;
(c) shall not in any manner hamper or tamper with evidence.
17. In case of violation of any of the bail condition, the learned
prosecution shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the
bail.
18. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of on
the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant