Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 23 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010097192025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1470/2025
MD WASIM AKRAM AND ANR
S/O- MD. FARID KHAN.
R/O- LILONG, P.O- LILONG,
DIST.- THOUBAL, MANIPUR
2: MD. MANJUR ALOM
S/O- MD. HOBIBUR RAHMAN.
R/O- LILONG
P.O- LILONG
DIST.- THOUBAL
MANIPU
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MUNIR, MS. N. A. BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
23.05.2025
1. Heard Mr S. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioners - (i) Md. Wasim
Akram and (ii) Md. Manjur Alom, who have filed this application under Section
Page No.# 2/6
483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since
09.07.2024 in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 108/2024 arising out of
Diphu P.S. Case No. 49/2024 registered under Section 21(c)/22(c)/29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 pending in the Court of
the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.
2. Heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam.
3. The petitioners have prayed for bail on the ground that they have been
behind bars for 314 days. It is submitted that the grounds of arrest have not
been communicated to the petitioners in a manner understood by the
petitioners. The notice under Section 47 of the BNSS is marked as Annexure-5
of the petition which is in violation of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. The State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein it has been held 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 tampering 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 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 .
Page No.# 3/6
4. It is submitted that the petitioners were not informed that they were
arrested in connection with transportation of heroin when the notice was issued
to them under Section 47 of the BNSS Act. The petitioners have also relied on
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs.
State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC online SC 269 wherein it has been
observed that:
"19. An argument was sought to be canvassed that in view of sub-Section
(1) of Section 50 of CrPC, there is an option to communicate to the person
arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or the other
grounds for the arrest. Section 50 cannot have the effect of diluting the
requirement of Article 22(1). If held so, Section 50 will attract the vice of
unconstitutionality. Section 50 lays down the requirement of
communicating the full particulars of the offence for which a person is
arrested to him. The 'other grounds for such arrest' referred to in Section
50(1) have nothing to do with the grounds of arrest referred to in Article
22(1). The requirement of Section 50 is in addition to what is provided
in Article 22(1). Section 47 of the BNSS is the corresponding provision.
Therefore, what we have held about Section 50 will apply to Section 47 of
the BNSS."
5. On the contrary, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has raised serious
objections stating that the petitioners are booked under serious offence of
transporting 685.65 grams of heroin along with 29,400 nos. of Yaba tablets. The
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye and Ors.- petitioners reported
in 1969 (1) SCC 292
"10. Article 22(1) embodies a rule which has always been regarded as vital
and fundamental for safeguarding personal liberty in all legal systems
where the rule of law prevails. For example, the 6th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States of America contains similar provisions
and so does Article XXXIV of the Japanese Constitution of 1946. In
England whenever an arrest is made without a warrant, the arrested
Page No.# 4/6
person has a right to be informed not only that he is being arrested but
also of the reasons or grounds for the arrest. The House of Lords in
Christie & Another v. Leachinsky ((1947) 1 All EER 567) went into the
origin and development of this rule. In the words of Viscount Simon if a
policeman who entertained a reasonable suspicion that X had committed
a felony were at liberty to arrest him and march him off to a police station
without giving any explanation of why he was doing this, the prima facie
right of personal liberty would be gravely infringed. Viscount Simon laid
down several propositions which were not meant to be exhaustive. For
our purposes we may refer to the first and the third :
"1. If a policeman arrests without warrant upon reasonable suspicion of
felony, or of other crime of a sort which does not require a warrant, he
must in ordinary circumstances inform the person arrested of the true
ground of arrest. He is not entitled to keep the reason to himself or to
give a reason which is not the true reason. In other words, a citizen is
entitled to know on what charge or on suspicion of what crime he is
seized.
2. X X X X
3. The requirement that the person arrested should be informed of the
reason why he is seized naturally does not exist if the circumstances are
such that he must know the general nature of the alleged offence for
which he is detained."
Lord Simonds gave an illustration of the circumstances where the accused
must know why he is being arrested.
"There is no need to explain the reasons of arrest if the arrested man is
caught red-handed and the crime is patent to high Heaven."
6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has stated that the petitioners were
caught red handed while transporting 685.65 grams of heroin along with 29,400
nos. Yaba tablets which clearly reflects the heinousness of the offence. The
petitioners are not entitled to bail. Charge-sheet has been submitted against
them and this reflects that a prima facie case was found against them which
resulted in the charge-sheet submitted against them. This case is not a case
Page No.# 5/6
where trial has been procrastinated by the prosecution or by the State. Three
witnesses have been examined but these three witnesses have not been cross-
examined by the defence. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every
possibility that they will flee from justice and they will repeat the offence which
is detrimental to the young generation of the society.
7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection.
8. There is not an iota of doubt that the petitioners are booked under a very
heinous offence abhorred by the society. The offence is indeed despicable in
nature. I have relied on the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case
of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra).
9. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that
bail may be granted to the petitioners.
10. Considering all aspects, the petitioners are enlarged on bail of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two local sureties of like amount,
one being a Government Servant to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
under the conditions that;
(i) the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with
which they are alleged,
(ii) The petitioners shall not jump the bail and cooperate
with the trial;
(iii) the petitioners shall not exercise threats to the
witnesses.
11. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to
cancel the bail granted to the petitioners.
Page No.# 6/6
12. Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
