Gauhati High Court
Inamul Ali vs The State Of Assam on 20 May, 2025
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010084632025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1261/2025
INAMUL ALI
S/O MD. AMZAD ALI
R/O VILL-KALITAPARA
P.O. GANESHKUARI
P.S. SIPAJHAR
DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM
PIN-784145
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. Y S MANNAN, MR. T HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
20.05.2025
Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the accused petitioner. Also
heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. P.P for the State.
Page No.# 2/7
2. By filing this application u/s 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, namely,
Inamul Ali, has sought for bail in connection with NDPS Case No.03/2024
(corresponding to North Guwahati P.S Case No.111/2023) u/s 21 (c)/29 of
NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge cum District and
Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
3. The brief fact of the case is that on 11.09.2023, as per source information
that a vehicle bearing no.AS-01-FM-7800 was carrying large quantity of narcotic
drugs. Accordingly, a naka checking was conducted at Amingaon and
subsequently aforesaid vehicle was intercepted wherein three occupants were
found inside the vehicle. On being searched, 170 soap boxes containing heroin
weighing about 2 kg 100 grms were recovered. Accordingly, the occupants of
the car were arrested and the recovered contraband was seized.
4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused
petitioner was not travelling in the vehicle from which the contraband item was
recovered. The alleged heroin was recovered from the possession of three
persons i.e. Hapou Singso, Gogou Haokip and Samingon Doungel, who were
travelling in the said vehicle. The accused petitioner was arrested subsequently
on the basis of the statement of the arrested accused persons made u/s 67 of
NDPS Act which is not admissible as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the
second bail application filed by the petitioner. Earlier bail application vide B.A
3946/2024 was rejected by this Court on 05.03.2025. Now the petitioner has
filed this application on new grounds that at the time of arrest of the petitioner,
the I.O issued a notice u/s 50 Cr.PC (Section 47 BNSS) wherein the ground of
arrest has not been mentioned in the said notice and thus violated the
Page No.# 3/7
fundamental rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India which is required to be followed as per law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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.
6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for more than one and half
years since his arrest on 12.09.2023. Out of 9 (nine) witnesses, only 3 (three)
witnesses have been examined till date. As such, there is no chance of
completion of trial within a short span of time. As such, liberty would override
the statutory embargo u/s 37 of the NDPS Act and the ground of undue delay in
trial cannot be fettered by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In this regard, learned counsel has referred the following
case laws -
a) Ravi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa, reported in
(2023) SCC Online SC 1109
b) Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2022) SC Online SC 2069
c) Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2022) O Supreme SC 1936
7. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that due to
such irregularities made during investigation as well as prolonged incarceration,
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
8. In response, learned Addl. P.P has raised a point that the petitioner was
arrested on 12.09.2023, as such, the observation in the case of Pankaj Bansal
Page No.# 4/7
(supra) is not applicable in this case which was delivered only on 03.10.2023 i.e.
after arrest of the petitioner. According to learned Addl. P.P, the judgment and
order of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) is prospective and
cannot be taken into consideration in granting bail to the petitioner.
9. In this regard, by referring the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
Civil Appeal No.5707/23 ( Union Territory of Ladakh and Ors. Vs. Jammu and
Kashmir National Conference and Anr.) and Kanishk Singha and Anr. Vs. State of
West Bengal vide (2025) INSC 278, learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases has held that
the law of prospective and retrospective operation is absolutely clear. Whereas a
law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been
specially stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse
is true for the law which is laid down by a constitutional court or law as it is
interpreted by the Court. The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective
in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will
operate prospectively. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the
judgments of Pankaj Bansal as well as Prabir Purkayastha and Vihaan Kumar are
squarely applicable to consider the bail of the petitioner.
10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the trial court record.
11. It is true that the petitioner was arrested prior to the judgment/order of
the Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India,
reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1244, wherein it was held that the written
ground of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person and if the same is not
complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA
Act, 2002 and consequently, the arrest, subsequent remand of the arrested
Page No.# 5/7
person cannot be sustained. But this proposition of law has been expounded by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent cases vide 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.
12. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) could be squarely
applicable in cases under the UA(P)Act or for that matter, any other offences.
The accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the
grounds of arrest in writing and the copy of such written grounds of arrest have
to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
exception at the earliest and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the
arrested person would vitiate the arrest, if the case has been charge-sheeted.
13. In the recent case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that not informing the arrested person about the grounds of arrest
would amount to violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India and this alone would be a ground to grant bail to the
accused even if statutory restrictions exist against the grant of bail.
14. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it is specifically stated in para
45 which is reproduced as follows -
"45. We are of the firm opinion that once this court has
interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the
constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds
of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing
expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land
binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article
Page No.# 6/7
141 of the Constitution of India."
15. In view of the above, the settled principle of law is that an arrested
person must be informing about the grounds of his arrest and detention which
is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against the arbitrary
arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained
without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the
instant case, there is no reflection in the Section 50 notice as well as in the
arrest memo issued to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed
about the grounds of his arrest in connection with North Guwahati P.S Case
No.111/2023.
16. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
17. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in
connection with NDPS Case No.03/2024 (corresponding to North Guwahati P.S
Case No.111/2023) u/s 21 (c)/29 of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of
the like amount, out of which, one of the surety should be a Government
employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge
cum District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner:
(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge cum
District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon without prior written permission
from him/her till disposal of the case;
(b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early
disposal of the case; and
Page No.# 7/7
(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the Court.
18. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of the court that the
arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending
case.
19. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail.
20. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
