Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The State Of Assam on 11 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010211002025
2025:GAU-AS:15244
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3085/2025
SHARUKH ALI ALIAS SARUK ALI AND ANR
SON OF SADEK ALI
R/O VILL- HILA, HALHAJI
P.S. BARPETA,
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
2: MUHAMADA ALIAS MUHABA
WIFE OF SHARUKH ALI
R/O VILL- HILA
HALHAJI
P.S. BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A K AZAD, MR. I HUSSAIN,MR N JAMAL,MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/10
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
11.11.2025
1. Heard A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.
2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the
petitioners, namely, 1. Sharukh Ali @ Saruk Ali and 2.
Muhamada @ Muhaba, who are detained behind the bars
since 25.05.2025, in connection with NDPS Case No. 70/2025,
arising out of Silchar P.S. Case No. 551/2025, under Sections
21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 25.05.2025
one Debabrat Das, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the
Officer-In-Charge of Silchar Sadar Police Station, inter alia
alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable
sources regarding transportation of suspected contrabands
concealed inside a grey colour maruti car bearing Registration
No. AS-26A-2522 coming from Mizoram side, a search team
was constituted and a naka checking was organized at a
strategic location. During naka checking the aforesaid car was
intercepted and during search operation three persons,
including two females were found in the said car. The present
Page No.# 3/10
petitioners were also amongst the occupant of the said car.
4. During search operation 14(fourteen) numbers of soap
cases were recovered from the seized car containing suspected
heroin. On weighing of the seized contrabands, the weight of
the same was found to be 1239 grams. After completion of the
investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the present
petitioners under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
both the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the
instant bail application mainly on the ground of violation of
their fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as the
statutory right under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023.
6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that after the arrest
of the present petitioners, though they were served with
notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, and reportedly, the
notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, were sent to the
relative of the petitioners through W.T. Message, however,
there is nothing on record to indicate that the said notice were
in fact served on the relatives of the petitioners.
7. He further, submits that in the said W.T. Message, the
grounds of arrest were not stated as required by the law and it
only conveyed the information relating to arrest of the
petitioners in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 551/2025.
Page No.# 4/10
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
communication of grounds of arrest in writing to the
relatives/friends/nominated persons of the arrested accused
persons is also a constitutional mandate under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India as observed by the Apex Court in the
case of "Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
Another" reported in "(2025) SCC Online SC 269". He
submits that if the said mandate is violated, it would result in
vitiation of the arrest itself, which would entitle the petitioners
to get bail on that count.
9. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has also cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case
of "Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. Vs. The State REP. By,
Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr." (Criminal
Appeal No. 4505/2025). He submits that as the laid down law
regarding communication of grounds of arrest to the relative
of the petitioners, which is mandatory in nature, was not
followed in this case. The arrest of the petitioners has become
illegal and on that count, they are entitled to get bail.
10. On the other hand, the the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam has
vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the
ground that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of
commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37
is applicable to this case. He further submits that though in the
Page No.# 5/10
W.T. Message, a copy of which is available in the case record,
the relatives were intimated about the arrest of the petitioners
in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 551/2025, however,
when the petitioners were presented before the Court of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar after their
arrest, and when they were asked by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, as to whether they have been
informed about grounds of arrest, they answered in affirmative
and same has been reflected in the order dated 25.05.2025,
passed in Silchar P.S. Case No. 551/2025, by the Court of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits
that as it apparent from the aforesaid order of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar that the accused
persons as well as the family members/relative have been
properly informed by the police regarding the grounds of
arrest, there is no violation of requirement of Section 48 of the
BNSS, 2023 in this case. He submits that the accused persons
have also engaged counsel of their own choice and therefore,
the purpose for which the necessity of communicating grounds
of arrest is there, has been fulfilled and there has been
substantial compliance of the statutory as well as
constitutional mandate.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also
submits that the facts in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Ors.
Page No.# 6/10
(supra) are distinguishable from the facts of the instant case in
as much in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. (supra)
revolves around non-compliance of Section 43(b) of Unlawful
Activities Prevention Act,1967 which is in pari materia with
Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, he submits that
reliance on the aforesaid ruling in this case by the learned
counsel for the petitioners is not justifiable.
13. He, accordingly, submits that considering the
nature of the offence and quantity of the contrabands involved
in this case, the bail may not be granted to the petitioners.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the
scanned copy of the records of NDPS Case No. 70/2025 which
has been requisitioned in connection with this bail application.
15. It is no longer res integra, after the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of " Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of
Haryana and Another" (supra), that requirement of
communicating grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the
arrested persons, but also to the friends, relatives or such
other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested persons, so as to make the mandate of Artilce-22 (1)
of the Constitution meaningful and effective, is mandatory
failing which such arrest may be rendered illegal. The Apex
Court has also clarified that communicating the grounds of
arrest is quite distinct from giving a mere intimation about the
Page No.# 7/10
arrest. The Apex Court also, in the case of"Prabir
Purkayastha Vs. State"(NCT of Delhi) reported in " (2024)
8 SCC 254" has clarified the differences in the phrase
"reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest". It clarified that
the grounds of arrest would be required to contain all such
details in the hands of the Investigating Officer which
necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the
grounds of arrest, in writing, must convey the arrested
accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to
provide him an opportunity of effectively defending himself
against custodial remand and seek bail. Further, the Apex
Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. (supra)has
observed that explanation by the Court before whom the
arrestee is produced can never be an adequate compliance of
furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of securing an
accused.
16. In the instant case, the question to be
determined now is to as to what was communicated to the
relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners in the
notice which was purported to be notice under Section 48 of
the BNSS, 2023. It is also relevant as to by what mode same
was communicated and what are the materials on record to
indicate that the communication to the
relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners was in
fact made by the arresting authority.
Page No.# 8/10
17. On perusal of the scanned copy of the record of
NDPS Case No. 70/2025, which was requisitioned in
connection with this case, it appears that the W.T. Messages
were sent to the Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Stations
to intimate the relatives/family members of the petitioners
regarding their arrest in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No.
551/2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
No further details were stated in the said W.T. Messages
regarding the accusation made against the petitioners in the
above-mentioned case, nor any basic facts which necessitated
the arrest have been stated in the said W.T. Messages.
18. After considering the materials on record, this
Court is of the considered opinion that by merely sending the
said W.T. Messages, without stating therein the grounds of
arrest of the petitioners, the arresting authorities have not
complied with the mandate of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023.
Further, there is no material on record which would indicate
that in pursuant to the said W.T. Message the
relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners were in
fact intimated about the grounds of arrest of the present
petitioners. As the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest,
in writing, to the relatives/friends/nominated persons is a
constitutional mandate touching upon the fundamental rights
of the petitioners, same may not be allowed to be diluted in
any manner by the arresting authorities by taking plea that
there has been substantial compliance of the aforesaid
Page No.# 9/10
statutory and constitutional mandate.
19. Thus, in view of the above discussions, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the arresting authorities have
failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing
grounds of arrest to the friends/relatives/nominated persons of
the petitioners and on that count alone, due to violation of
mandatory constitutional requirement, the arrest of the
petitioners have become illegal and for the said reasons, the
petitioners are entitled to get bail.
20. In view of the above, the above-named
petitioners, namely, 1. Sharukh Ali @ Saruk Ali and 2.
Muhamada @ Muhaba, are allowed to go on bail of Rs.
1,00,000/- each with two sureties of like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar with
following conditions:-
I. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of
NDPS Case No. 70/2025, arising out of Silchar P.S.
Case No. 551/2025, under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of
NDPS Act, 1985;
II.That the petitioners shall appear before the trial
court as and when so required by the trial court;
III. That the petitioners shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to
any person who may be acquainted with the facts of
Page No.# 10/10
the case, so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing such facts before the trial court in the trial
pending against the present petitioners;
IV. That the petitioners shall provide their contact
details including photocopies of their Adhaar Card or
Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and
other contact details before the trial court;
V. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the trial court without prior permission of the trial
court and when such leave is granted by the trial
court, the petitioners shall submit their leave address
and contact details during such leave before the trial
court; and
VI. That the petitioners shall not commit any
offence while on bail.
21. With the above observation, this bail application is
accordingly, disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
