Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 27 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010148842025
2025:GAU-AS:11543
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2177/2025
MIZANUR RAHMAN
S/O- ABDUL MANNAN.
R/O- WARD NO.1, NEAR ARALIA PANCHAYAT, P.S.- SONAMURA, DIST.-
SIPAIJALLA, TRIPURA.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N AHMED, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A
BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,N. J. DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
27.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of
Assam.
Page No.# 2/5
2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by
the petitioner, namely, Mizanur Rahman, who has been detained behind the bars
since 03.11.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 127/2025 under Section
22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 03.11.2024, one Anowar
Hussain Sheikh had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of GPRS
Guwahati, inter alia, alleging that during regular train checking duty the police
team while conducting checking in train No. 15626 DN Deoghar Weekly Express
at Platform No. 1 of Guwahati Railway Station recovered 1020 grams of YABA
Tablets from the possession of the present petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is seeking bail in this case mainly on the ground that no written
grounds of arrest were communicated to him at the time of his arrest as well as
no notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was served on the relatives of the
petitioner as after his arrest.
5. He submits that it is apparent from the record that only a WT message
was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Sonamura Police Station to intimidate the
family members of the petitioner regarding the fact of his arrest. However, no
grounds of arrest were mentioned there in the said WT message. He also
submits that there is also no record as to whether in fact, within the fact of the
arrest, was communicated to the family members of the petitioner in pursuant
to the said WT message or not. He, therefore, submits that there has been a
violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Vihaan
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another" reported in "(2025) 5 SCC
799."
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
Page No.# 3/5
submitted that the notice which was served on the petitioner under Section 47
of the BNSS, 2023 after his arrest, do mention that he was arrested for carrying
YABA Tablets which was seized in this case and therefore, he submits that
grounds of arrest have been stated in the said notice. However, he fairly submits
that as regards notice under Section 48 is concerned, there is only one WT
message available in the records which indicates that the said WT message was
sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Sonamura Police Station for intimating to the
family members of the petitioner regarding the fact of arrest of the petitioner in
connection with GRPS case No. 229/2024. However, in the said WT message,
nothing more which constituted the basic facts necessitating his arrest have not
been mentioned.
7. He also fairly submits that it also cannot be said from the materials on
record whether in pursuant to the said WT message, anything was informed to
the family members. He, however, submits that the Apex Court in the case of
"State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc" reported in "Criminal Appeal No.
3528-3534/2025" has observed that mere absence of written grounds ipso
facto does not render the arrest illegal unless there is a demonstrable prejudice
or denial of fair opportunity is shown by the said petitioner.
8. To counter in response to the submission of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a
judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of " National
Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate@Lenin Mate" reported in
"(Order dated 21.08.2025) in Criminal Appeal No. 234/2025," wherein
the Division Bench has after giving reasons and after relying on the observations
made by the Apex Court in the case of " National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi" reported in "(2017)16 SCC 680" have held the decision of the
Page No.# 4/5
Apex Court in case of "Vihaan Kumar (supra) which is prior to that of Sri
Darshan Etc (supra) will be applicable and the grounds of arrest in writing
would have to be made known not only to the arrested person but also to the
family members of the relatives/nominated person of the arrested person.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides. In this case apparently, there is nothing apart from the WT message
dated 04.11.2024, on record to show that the grounds of arrest were made
known to the family members/friends/nominated person of the petitioner in this
case.
10. Hence, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case
of "Vihaan Kumar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that by not
furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the family
members/friends/relative person of the petitioner, there has been a violation of
the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India and also violation of the provisions of Section 48 of
the BNSS, 2023 and as per the observations made in Vihaan Kumar (supra)
such a violation will render the arrest of the petitioner illegal and he would be
entitled to get bail on that count only.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.
50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount,
subject to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2,
Kamrup(M), Guwahati with following conditions that:-
i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No.
127/2025.
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so
required by the Trial Court;
Page No.# 5/5
iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the
case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial
Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;
iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of
his Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other
contact details before the Trial Court;
v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without
prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial
Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during
such leave before the Trial Court; and
vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
12. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
