Non-compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution vitiates the arrest, allowing for bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.

ORDER

Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant, praying for release of the accused, Shri Dhan Sharmah, in connection with Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985, who has been arrested on 10.01.2025.

3. An F.I.R. was filed on 10.01.2025 by ASI T. D. Goiba of Doimukh Police Station to the effect that at about 0930 hours, a reliable information was received regarding the movement of suspected smugglers transporting a significant quantity of cannabis, thereby reported that the smugglers were traveling from Kalaktang, West Kameng District, in 2 (two) vehicles, heading towards Doimukh via Kalaktang-Rupa-Seppa- Sagalee Road. Upon receiving the information, SDPO Doimukh Radhe Obing along with SI M. K. Rai, ASI T.D. Goiba (himself), SI Tage Saa, ASI M.A. Nur and the Police Station's ready party, immediately proceeded to the said road for interception. Accordingly, 2 (two) vehicles, namely, Maruti Ertiga bearing Registration No. AS-02AG-0992 and another Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A-8655 were successfully intercepted at Sopo Village. The Maruti Ertiga vehicle was found carrying 26 (twenty-six) white plastic bags of suspected cannabis (Ganja), weighing total 134.45 kilograms. The suspected Cannabis (Ganja) was seized from the driver in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and independent witnesses. The driver, was identified as one Shri Lakshan Basumatary, thereafter, he was taken into custody. The other vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A- 8655 was found to be serving as an escort for transporting of the suspected Cannabis (Ganja). The 3 (three) occupants including the present accused were apprehended. It was stated that all the aforementioned individuals were suspected to be involved in smuggling of cannabis (Ganja) and accordingly, the suspected cannabis (Ganja) were seized along with the vehicles.

4. On receipt of the above F.I.R, a case has been registered being Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025 under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985. The accused was arrested on 10.01.2025 in connection with the above Doimukh P.S. case.

5. The accused moved a bail application, before the Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, however, the same was rejected on 28.01.2025 on the ground that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the main accused is yet to be arrested.

6. By filing the present bail application praying for grant of bail to the accused, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J. Tsering, submits that the ground of arrest of the accused has not been communicated as required to be done under the law. While referring to the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 in the bail application, he submits that there is nothing in the said Arrest Memo, which discloses the grounds of arrest, which is in clear violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the arrest of the accused person is illegal and accordingly, the accused is entitled to be released on bail even without surety. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 : 2024 4 Supreme 708 to project that to arrest a person, the provisions of the Act and the Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India has to be followed, else same would be illegal.

7. Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, by placing the Case Diary, has fairly submitted that although the Arrest-cum-

Inspection Memo was furnished to the accused, the grounds of arrest as required under the law appears to have been not furnished. While relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2