Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 7004 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam on 4 September, 2025

                                                                            Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010162722025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:12222

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2389/2025

            SELIM UDDIN
            SON OF LATE MAJAID ALI
            R/O IVLL- CHANDI NAGAR, PART-II, P.S. KATIGORAH
            DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MS. J CHETTRY,MS. S SEAL

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

                                           ORDER

04.09.2025

1. Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 Page No.# 2/8

Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Selim Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since 22.04.2025(for the last 136 days), in connection with NDPS Case No. 46/2025, corresponding to Dholai P.S. Case No. 63/2025 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that one Gunjan Phukan SI of Police of Dholai Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Dholai Police station, inter-alia, alleging that on 21.04.2025 an information was received through reliable sources to the effect that one suspected drugs

peddlerhas been apprehended by local people at 16 th Number Basti near Salganga River on RCC Bridge.

4. On receipt of the said information, the police team rushed to the said location and found the present petitioner being apprehended by local public.

5. It is also alleged in the FIR that on search of the body of the present petitioner, 1999(One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine) numbers of suspected YABA tablets were recovered.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is praying for bail in this case, mainly on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Page No.# 3/8

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in as much as though, the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 were served on him, however, the same was in English language and the petitioner being an illiterate is not familiar with the English language.

7. He submits that in the case of "Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another" reported in "(2025) 5 SCC 799"

the Apex Court has while laying down the guidelines to be followed while arresting a person, has observed that the information regarding grounds of arrestmust be provided to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

8. He submits that the mode and method of communication must be such that the object of constitutional safeguard is achieved. He, however, submits that in the instant case, the same was not done and apparently, the petitioner who has put his thumb on the said notice is an illiterate person and therefore, there is a violation of the constitutional mandate as well as guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another"

(supra).

9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner as well the engaged State Defence Counsel for the petitioner, have stated before the Magistrate when the Page No.# 4/8

present petitioner was produced before the said Magistrate (learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar), on 22.04.2025,afterhis arrest, that the petitioner and his family members are aware of the arrest as well as grounds of arrest have been properly communicated by the police personnel.

10. He submits that the petitioner once stated before the Magistrate, on his production that the ground of arrest were communicated as well as were made known to him by the police personnel now he cannot take the plea that since it is in English language, the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated.

11. He further submits that since the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the bail application.

12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the scanned copy of the Trial Court records as well as scanned copy of the Case Diary.

13. The Apex Court has observed in the case of "Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another"(supra)as follows:-

"26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest Page No.# 5/8

must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such thatthe object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved;"

14. In the present case, the petitioner has taken the plea that he is an illiterate person, which is apparent from the fact that he has given his thumb impression only in the arrest memo as well as notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.The notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, in this case, is in English language, however, thereis no indication anywhere as to whether the contents of the said notice has been explained to the petitioner in language understood by him.

15. On the other hand, it also appears in the order dated 22.04.2025, passed in Dholai P.S. Case No. 63/2025, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar has made an observation that the accused Selim Uddin, as well as the learned Legal Aid Defence Counsel have stated that the accused and his family members are aware of his arrest and grounds of arrest have been properly communicated by the police personnel.

Page No.# 6/8

16. As the Apex Court has clearly stated in the case of "Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another"

(supra)that the information of grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds are communicating to the arrested person in the language which he understands. However, there is noting on record to indicate that the petitioner understands the English language.

There is also nothing on record to indicate that the contents of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 were explained to the petitioner in the language understood by him.

17. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar had not reflected in the order dated 22.04.2025 that the contents of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 was explained to the petitioner effecting in the language which the petitioner understands. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has emphasized on the need for effective mode and method of communication, so as to ensure that the object of constitutional safeguard as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

18. Thus, in the instant case, this Court is of the considered opinion that as there is nothing on record to show that the contents of notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 which was served on the petitioner, was explained to the petitioner in the language understood by him, the fundamental Page No.# 7/8

rights guaranteed to the petitioner by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated in this case and on that count, the petitioner is entitled to get bail.

19. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case.

20. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar with following conditions that:-

i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 46/2025, corresponding to Dholai P.S. Case No. 63/2025 under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985;

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner;

iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;

Page No.# 8/8

v. That the petitioner 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 petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and

vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

21. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of.

22. Send back the Case Diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant