Formal communication of the specific offence and legal basis at the time of apprehension satisfies the constitutional and statutory requirement for informing an arrestee of the grounds for detention. A separate, specifically-titled document is not mandatory if the arrest memo encompasses necessary factual and legal particulars.

ORDER :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the NCB.

2. On 18.12.2022, the petitioner was arrested in connection with NCB Guwahati Case No. 24/2022 under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act along with two others. On 19.12.2022, he was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amingaon, Kamrup. The petitioner was sent to one day NCB remand. After his medical examination, the petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Amingaon, Kamrup.

3. The earlier prayer for bail for the petitioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 26.06.2024 passed in BA 4258/2023 as well as by order dated 20.11.2024 passed in BA 2732/2024. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a third application for bail before this Court by way of an application made under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

4. It is submitted that the new ground on which this bail application has been filed is that while arresting the petitioner, he was only served with a copy of notice under Section 50 of the CrPC. However, no grounds of arrest was served on the petitioner, which is in disregard to the provisions of Section 52 of the NDPS Act; Section 50 of the CrPC [now Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023]; and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission that for non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest, the petitioner would be entitled to bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., (i) Madhu Limaye & Ors. v. Unknown, (1996) 1 SCC 292; (ii) Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. v. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference & Anr., 2023 SCC Online SC 1140; (iii) Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 (7) SCC 576; (iv) Prabir Purkayastha v. State (Nct of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; (v) Directorate of enforcement v. Subhash Sharma , 2025 SCC Online 240; (vi) Vihaan Kumar v. The State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 3 Supreme 363; (vii) Kanishk Sinha & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr., 2025 3 Supreme 117; and, (viii) Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh , Crl. Appeal No. 1518/2025.

5. It is also submitted that out 12 witnesses, till date only 4 witnesses have only been examined and therefore, there is remote chance of an early trial.

6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has submitted that in consequence of recovery and seizure of 153.2 kg. of ganja, 179 grams of methamphetamine tablets, 1.020 kg. of brown colour substance suspected to be heroin, and 16 bottles of codeine based Anrex- CP cough syrup, the petitioner was arrested and he was provided with a memorandum of arrest, which contains the reasons of arresting the petitioner. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the same was in due compliance of the prescribed procedure. Moreover, it has been submitted that the intimation of his arrest was given by the petitioner to his wife on her mobile number xxxxx145 (phone number is masked in this order) after his arrest on 18.12.2022. In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has cited the following cases, viz., (i) P Soul & Ors., v. the Union of India, Bail Appln. No. 1462/2025, decided on 04.06.2025; (ii) Md. Faruque Khan v. The Union of India , Bail Appln