An arrest memo stating that sufficient evidence was found against an accused is considered sufficient communication of the grounds of arrest when no specific statutory provision or regulatory guideline mandates a higher level of detail, particularly for individuals apprehended during the recovery of contraband from their premises.

ORDER :

KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

2) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the other co-accused have been released on bail. However, this is the third bail application of the petitioners, namely, Abdul Salik and Abdul Fatta (as stated in the cause title, however, in the charge-sheet, the said name is spelt as Abdul Fattha).

3) It has been submitted that upon rejection of the second bail application of the petitioners vide order dated 23.02.2024, passed by this Court in B.A. No. 155/2024, the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court of India and the said Hon’ble Court, by order dated 25.04.2024, passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5584/2024, permitted the petitioners to withdraw the said bail application with liberty to renew their application for bail in case the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time.

4) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are two new grounds for making this application. Firstly, that though charge- sheet no. 179 against the petitioners was submitted on 25.07.2022, till date only 5 (five) out of 10 (ten) listed witnesses have been examined. Therefore, there is no possibility of an early conclusion of trial. Moreover, it is submitted that the previous application for bail by the petitioners was rejected by this Court by order dated 23.02.2024, and on that date only 4 (four) out of 10 (ten) witness had been examined by the prosecution and thus, only 1 (one) witness could be examined by the prosecution in a span of 1 (one) year.

5) Secondly, it has been submitted that the grounds of arrest was not disclosed in the arrest memo dated 08.05.2022, which entitled the petitioners for bail.

6) In support of his submissions that non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest entitles the petitioners to bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., (1) Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269; (2) Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT OF DELHI), (2024) 8 SCC 254; (3) Ashish Kakkar v. UT of Chandigarh , Criminal Appeal No. 1518/2025; (4) Ajit Kumar Sarmah v. The State of Assam & Ors., (1976) CRI.L.J. 1303; (5) Joynal Hussen @ Joynal Hussain & Anr. v. The State of Assam, order dated 26.03.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 683/2025; (6) Mahbubul Hoque v. The State of Assam , judgment dated 03.03.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 563/2025; (7) Abdullah Al Mahmud Choudhury @ Abdullah Choudhury @ Bablu v. The State of Assam , order dated 23.04.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 1172/2025; (8) Jasir Uddin Barbhuiya & Anr. v. The State of Assam, order dated 13.03.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 3081/2024; (9) Sri Sumeru Nath v. The State of Assam , order dated 04.04.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 905/2025; (10) Ajir Ali @ Budu v. The State of Assam , order dated 27.02.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 255/2025; (11) Kabel Uddin & Anr. v. The State of Assam, order dated 11.04.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 3241/2024; (12) Abdul Kadir Laskar v. The State of Assam , order dated 25.04.2025, passed by this Court in Bail Appln. No. 527/2025; and (13) Sri Neizosetuo Kire v. The State of Nagaland , judgment and order dated 11.04.2025, passed by the Kohima