Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/4 vs State Of Assam on 9 May, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010179792024




                                                                    2025:GAU-AS:5732

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2665/2024

            RAFIUL HUSSAIN
            S/O LATE MONOWAR HUSSAIN, R/O VILL- MEDICAL ROAD, DHUPDHARA,
            P.S.-DHUPDHARA, DIST- GOALPARA, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA,MR F H LASKAR (2),MS S
BEGUM,MR. M ALAM

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                  BEFORE
               HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND

                                           ORDER

Date : 09-05-2025

Heard learned counsel Ms. S.K. Nargis for the petitioner Rafiul Hussain, who has filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 16.03.2021 in connection with NDPS Case No. 34/2021 pending in the Court of Special Judge Page No.# 2/4

(NDPS), Kamrup arising out of Palashbari Police Station Case No. 169/2021 under Sections 20(C) of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. Heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, who has raised objection stating that the petitioner was apprehended while transporting 95 bottles of cough syrup. The petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity of offence.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that notice under Section 50 as well as 50A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been served to the petitioner.

4. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection and I have also scrutinized the scanned copies of the Trial Court Records.

5. It appears that the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein it has been held and observed that :-

"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 Page No.# 3/4

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."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 wherein it has been held and observed that:-

"1. I had the benefit of going through the draft opinion of my esteemed Brother Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and I concur with the analysis and conclusions arrived at. However, I wish to add a few lines in supplement to the aforesaid opinion.

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."

5. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), petition is allowed.

6. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with a local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that :-