Gauhati High Court
Hotoli Yepthomi vs The Union Of India on 9 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010076432025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1136/2025
HOTOLI YEPTHOMI
W/O LATE HOTO KHU
R/O VILL- SIKUR
P.O.AND P.S. KIPHIRE TOWN,
DIST. KIPHIRE,NAGALAND.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REP BY SC, NCB
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, Q. KIBA,MR F H LASKAR (2)
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
09.06.2025
1. Heard learned counsel Ms. S. K. Nargis for the petitioner who has filed this
application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as the
petitioner is behind bars since 12.07.2021 in connection with NDPS Case No.
Page No.# 2/5
01/2022 arising out of NCB Crime No. 16/2021 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the
NDPS Act.
2. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. S. C. Keyal is present for the NCB.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, Hotoli Yepthomi that the
petitioner is behind bars for more than 3 years 2 months. 10 witnesses are
enlisted in the charge-sheet and only 3 witnesses have been examined so far.
The evidence of the witnesses including the evidence of the seizure witnesses
exonerates the petitioner as several discrepancies could be elicited through the
evidence of the witnesses.
4. It is alleged that a carrier was intercepted and a dummy person was
forwarded as a carrier. The petitioner is innocent. No contraband was recovered
from the possession of the petitioner who allegedly came to meet a dummy
person. It is further submitted that no grounds of arrest were communicated to
the petitioner.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the NCB, Mr. S. C. Keyal has raised
serious objections stating that 17.780 kgs of tramadol tablets and 900 nitrosun
tablets were seized in connection with this case. It is submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence.
6. It is also a fundamental duty to deter any person from causing harm to the
youth. Offences of this nature are menaces to the society which has adverse
effect on the youth at large. In offences of serious nature, the ground of length
of detention cannot be accepted. In the additional affidavit submitted by the
petitioner, the notice under section 50 of the Cr.PC has been annexed which
reveals that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner in a
manner the petitioner could understand.
Page No.# 3/5
7. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vihan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana and Anr , reported in 2025 SCC
online SC 269, wherein in the ascenting view, it has been observed that:-
" 2. The issue on the requirement of communication of
grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been
incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
under Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in this
judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of
arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in the
case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha
(supra). The said constitutional mandate has been Incorporated in
the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It
may also be noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for
communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also
required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other
persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person for the purpose of giving such information as
provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be noted, this is in
the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of
the CrPC.
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about
the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take
immediate and prompt actions to as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right
guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying
information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be
meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be
noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under
Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that
unless the twin conditions prescribed there under are satisfied,
such a person would not be entitled to grant of ball. The twin
Page No.# 4/5
conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must
be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to
oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the
offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for
the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the
authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis
for the officer's "reason to believe" that he/she is guilty of an
offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested
person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a
position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are
grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as
to avail the relief of ball. Therefore, communication of the grounds
of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must
be given due Importance."
8. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.
It is true that the petitioner has been behind bars for more than 3 years 2
months. Only 3 out of 10 witnesses have been examined so far. Culmination of
the trial appears to be remote.
9. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihan
Kumar (Supra).
10. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it appears that bail may be
granted to the petitioner.
11. The petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs 1 lac with two local sureties of like
amount, one being a government employee to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court under the conditions that:-
(i) the petitioner shall not jump the bail,
(ii) the petitioner shall cooperate with the trial,
Page No.# 5/5
and
(iii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities
with which the petitioner is alleged.
12. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Trial Court is at liberty
to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
