Page No.# 1/3 vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 9333 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/3 vs The Union Of India on 5 December, 2025

                                                                             Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010190392025




                                                                      undefined

                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                            Case No. : Bail Appln./2763/2025

          PRADIP DEY AND ANR
          S/O DILIP DEY
          R/O VILL- NUTAN NAGAR COOPERATIVE, P.O. NUTAN NAGAR,
          P.S. RAM NAGAR,
          DARET- WEST TRIPURA, TRIPURA- 799009.

          2: LITON DAS
           SON OF PICHAN DAS
          R/O VILL- SUBHASH NAGAR
          AGARTALA
           P.O. RAMTEK COLONY
           DARET TRIPURA-799001

          VERSUS

          THE UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SC, NCB

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,

                                BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

                                       ORDER

05.12.2025

1. Heard Ms. S. K. Nargis, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners as well as Ms. M. Deka, learned standing counsel, NCB.

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-

Page No.# 2/3

petitioners, namely, Pradip Dey and Liton Das , praying for grant of bail in connection with NDPS Case No.27/2021 arising out of NCB Crime No. 17/2020 under Section 22(b)(ii)(c)/29 of NDPS Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati.

3. One of the contentions of the petitioner's side is non-compliance with the notices under Section 50/50A CrPC. The other contention of the petitioner's side is that despite being an under trial detention since 14.12.2020, the trial has not yet been completed.

4. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, one of the points laid down is that whenever a contention regarding con-compliance with the notice, the mandatory notices is made the prosecution is to be given an opportunity to through light on the said compliance or otherwise.

5. Petitioner's side has filed an additional affidavit annexing copies of notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C.

6. Notice annexed by the petitioner side tallies with the notice available in the scanned record and may be reproduced herein below.

"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 Court for your bail."

7. The petitioner was arrested on 14.12.2020 and the case is stated to be at the stage of trial during which five witnesses has been examined out of eleven witnesses.

8. The aforesaid notice clearly would not meet the stipulations laid down by the Page No.# 3/3

Hon'ble Supreme Court Vihan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purakayastha (supra) cases vis-a-vis Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

9. The grounds of arrest are required to be in reasonable detail and specific to the accused person and these have to be furnished not only to the accused person, but also his nominated person/ relatives, in terms of the Constitutional mandate. In the event of such violation, the continued under trial detention of the accused shall become untenable and this would be so, even, if there are other statutory restrictions on grant of bail. No judgment has come to notice or has been placed to indicate that the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions are not retrospective. Accordingly, in the in the given situation, the accused persons are required to be given granted bail at this stage. In any case, he has been in under trial detention since 14.12.2020.

10. In the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that it would be just and proper to grant bail to the accused at this stage.

11. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.75,000/- each with one suitable surety of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions that the petitioners:

(a) shall be available during the remaining trial.

(b) shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence.

(c) shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities prohibited under the NDPS Act.

12. Violation of any bail conditions shall entail cancellation of bail.

13. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant