Gauhati High Court
Debojit Debnath Alias Debajit Debnath ... vs The Union Of India on 14 November, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010220122025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3212/2025
DEBOJIT DEBNATH ALIAS DEBAJIT DEBNATH ALIAS BABAI
SON OF LATE SENTU BHUSAN DEBNATH
RESIDENT OF 29 A, DUKLI BAZAR, MADHUBAN, PO MADHUBAN DUKLI,
PS AMTALI, DISTRICT TRIPURA WEST, AGARTALA, TRIPURA- 799003
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI
ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N N B CHOUDHURY, MS. K DEY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
Date : 14.11.2025
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. N.N.B.Choudhury for the petitioner Debojit
Debnath @ Debajit Debnath @ Babai who has filed this application under
Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since
25.01.2025 in connection with NDPS Case No. 167/2025 corresponding to NCB
Page No.# 2/8
Guwahati Crime No.01/2025 under Section 8 (c) r/w 21 (c) /29 of the NDPS Act.
2. Heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal,
learned Standing Counsel for the NCB.
3. The trial court records is placed before the Court.
4. It may be mentioned herein that earlier bail application of the present
petitioner in Bail Application No.947/2025 was rejected by this Court vide order
dated 21.05.2025.
5. The allegation in the case in brief is that on the intervening night of 23 rd
and 24th January, 2025, the NCB, Guwahati has recovered and seized 335 grams
of suspected heroin at platform no. 6 of Guwahati Railway Station from the
possession of one lady namely Rudrani Bhattacharjee.
6. The petitioner is in judicial custody for 306 days since he was arrested on
25.01.2025.
7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the contraband was not
seized from his possession. The petitioner is an engineering student and he is
not involved in any case of transportation of contraband. His entire career will
be damaged if he is incarcerated for a prolonged period. It is further submitted
that no notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has been issued to any of
the relatives of the petitioner although earlier bail prayer was rejected as proper
notice under Section 47 of the BNSS has been served. This is a good ground to
grant bail as the petitioner's right to personal liberty has been curtailed.
8. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & anr. reported in
Page No.# 3/8
(2025) 5 SCC 799, wherein it has been held in paragraph nos. 41 and 42 as
quoted herein below:
"41. 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.
42. 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 secure the release of the arrested person
as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention,
may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his
release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such
nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release
of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of
communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his
relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the
detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the
necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated
persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising
the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in
writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or
such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so
as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and
effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal."
Page No.# 4/8
9. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of
National Investigation Agency vs- Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate
passed in Criminal Appeal No.234/2025 wherein vide order dated 21.08.2025, a
Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph nos. 14, 16 and 17 as
quoted herein below:
"14. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to prove that they
have complied with the requirement of Article 22(1), insofar as the
communication of the grounds of arrest of the accused respondent had been
communicated to his family members.
* * * * * * * *
16. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc.(Supra), we are of the view that the non
furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing, to the family/relatives of the
arrested person immediately, cannot be said to be illegal or violative of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and section 47 of the BNSS. However, the
grounds of arrest have to be furnished within a reasonable time. In the present
case, the accused/respondent was arrested on 19/05/2025 and till the date of
filing of the written objection by the appellant in Bail Application No. 486/2025
i.e. on 02/06/2025, the brother/relatives of the accused/respondent had not
been provided a copy of the grounds of arrest. This delay of approximately 18
days, in our view, is beyond reasonable time, keeping in view the decision of
the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra). As such, the requirement of
making the relatives of the accused/respondent aware of the grounds of arrest
of an accused not having been made within a reasonable time, it can be said
that the said delay could make the arrest illegal in terms of Vihaan Kumar
(Supra).
17. We have perused the records that have been brought by the appellant.
Though, there is signature in the photocopy of the Arrest Memo of the
Page No.# 5/8
accused/respondent, which the appellant say, is the signature of the brother of
the accused, we find that there is no date affixed to the said signature. On the
Page No.# 9/10 other hand, all the other signatures in the Arrest Memo, which
have been signed by the witnesses, the Arrestee and the Officer making the
arrest, all have dates. There is nothing to prove that the grounds of arrest had
been received by the brother of the accused respondent on 20.05.2025. In that
view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the brother of the appellant had been given a copy of the Arrest
Memo on 20/05/2025 is not proved and the said submission does not inspire
our confidence. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the appellant in their written
objection to the Bail Application filed before the learned Special Court, NIA,
Assam, had specifically taken a stand that the grounds of arrest of the
accused/respondent had been given to the father of the accused/respondent.
This stand has, however, been completely changed in the present appeal, which
has been filed only on 02/06/2025."
10. Relying on the aforementioned judgments, it is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned to
any of the relatives of the petitioner and the petitioner's fundamental right has
been infringed.
11. Reverting back to the instant case, it is observed that there is no evidence
that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the relatives of the
petitioner. The memorandum of arrest reveals that the petitioner refused to affix
his signature on the memorandum of arrest but the intimation of his arrest was
given to his mother and advocate. In the instant case too, there is no evidence
of any of the relatives of the petitioner receiving any information of the arrest of
the petitioner. No signatures have been taken down while the information of the
petitioner's arrest was intimated to the petitioner's relative or his advocate. A
Page No.# 6/8
Division Bench of this Court has held in paragraph 15 of the case of
Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate (supra) as quoted herein below:
"15. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Supreme Court had negated the submission of
the learned counsel for the accused respondent that an arrest would be illegal if
the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately, thereby violating Article
22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C, now Section 47 of the BNSS.
However, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the decision of the Supreme
Court therein is to the effect that the grounds of arrest has to be in writing and
has to be furnished to the relatives of the arrested person. Thus, there appears
to be dichotomy of views in the different decisions of the Supreme Court.
However, keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that if there are
conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision
should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier
decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar
(supra). Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar (Supra), we are of the view that the grounds of arrest in writing would
have to be made known, not only to the arrested person, but also to the
family/relative of the arrested person."
12. Ms. Deka on behalf of learned Standing Counsel has raised serious
objection stating that the Case Diary and the arrest memo clearly reveals that
the petitioner deliberately refused to affix his signature in the arrest memo and
then his mother and his advocate was informed about the incident. Thus, this is
not a case where
grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the relatives of the petitioner.
Earlier, the petitioner's prayer for bail was rejected as it was held by this Court
Page No.# 7/8
that grounds of arrest were not intimated to the petitioner. It is true that the
arrest memo clearly reflects that the petitioner has refused to affix his signature
on the arrest memo and his mother and advocate was apprised about the
petitioner's arrest, but no signatures were taken. I have relied on the decision of
this Court in Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate (supra), and it is hereby
held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as grounds of arrest has not been
furnished to the petitioner's relatives, be it in writing or verbally. Thereby, the
petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with
02(two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court subject to the following conditions:
i) That the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with
which he is alleged,
ii) That the petitioner shall co-operate with the trial,
iii) That the petitioner shall not jump the bail, and
iv) That the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence.
13. On breach of any of the bail condition, the Court is at liberty to
immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the bail application stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
Page No.# 8/8
Comparing Assistant
