Violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution due to failure to inform arrested individuals of grounds for arrest necessitates bail, even in cases involving serious charges under the NDPS Act.

ORDER

13.03.2025

Heard Mr. B.K Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P Goswami, learned Addl. P.P for the State.

2. By filing this bail application u/s 483 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No.76/2023 (arising out of Bazaricherra Police Station Case No. 132/2023) u/s 22(c)/ 29 of NDPS Act, pending in the Court of learned Sessions/Special Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj).

3. The factual matrix leading to this bail application is that an FIR has been lodged on 01.07.2023 before the Officer-in-Charge of Bazaricherra P.S stating inter alia that on the same day at around 4.40 A.M, one white color 4-wheeler Bolero pickup truck bearing registration no. AS-11-DC-7274 which was coming from Guwahati side towards Tripura, was signaled to stop at the naka checking point. During checking of the truck, 10 nos. of cartons containing 1500 nos. of bottles of suspected Codeine Phosphate Syrup were found, which were concealed with various types of online booking goods of Blue Dart, weighing about 180 kgs. The vehicle along with the recovered items were seized and the accused petitioners were arrested.

4. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused/petitioner no.1 is a driver by profession and the accused/ petitioner no.2 is a handyman, working under the Royal Courier Service, Paltanbazar, Guwahati. They are plying vehicles under Blue Dart Express Ltd. which is a National Logistics Company provided delivery services which has been misused by unknown miscreants for their illegal gain. The petitioners have no knowledge regarding transportation of such illegal drugs in the said vehicle.

5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that it is a settled position of law that only conscious possession of contraband is penalized and considering the peculiar factual matrix of the instant case, it can be clearly seen that the accused petitioners had no role in the booking, loading, sealing/locking or unlocking of the shipment and they were only carrying out their allotted duties. Under such backdrop, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

6. It is further submitted that the accused petitioners have been languishing in judicial custody since 02.07.2023. The trial court has failed to complete the trial during such period. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that prolonged incarceration dilutes the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bail may be granted to the petitioners on this ground alone.

7. By referring the judgment of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, the learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case has held that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offences, has a fundamental and the statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and the copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.

8. It is also submitted that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.

9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the case in hand, as per arrest memo of the petitioners, the grounds of arrest have not been reflected which is mandatory in nature. As such, petitioners are entitled for bail due to such illegality committed at the time of their arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners also cited another case law vide (2025) SCC Online SC 269 ( Vi