GAHC010227492025 2025:GAU-AS:16727

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./3366/2025

MD SADDAM

S/O WASHI AKHTAR, R/O VILL. N.K. DARRANGA, P.S. TAMULPUR, DIST.

TAMULPUR, ASSAM, PIN 781367

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, MD. M. ALI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

ORDER

04-12-2025

Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Md. Saddam, who has been

arrested in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 11/2024 arising out of Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 280/2023 under Section 22(C) of the NDPS Act.

3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the status report as called for has already been received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Paul, learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence, as alleged in the FIR. Further, he submitted that the present accused petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years and hence considering his period of long incarceration, he may be released on bail.

5. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also raised the issue that the grounds of arrest was not mentioned by furnishing the arrest memo, inspection memo and notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C which is a mandatory requirement. He also submitted that the family members of the accused petitioner were also not served with any notice under Section 48A BNSS intimating the grounds of arrest.

6. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that such non-compliance of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS corresponding to Section 50 and 50A of the Cr.P.C constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution as well as statutory provision, which would vitiate the arrest itself.

7. He further submitted that 13 numbers of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution, but except the official witnesses no other witness implicated the present petitioner and more so, owner of the house wherefrom the alleged seizure was made is already declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case.

8. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that considering the judgment of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. Vs. The State of represented by Assistant Commissioner passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025 also considered that grounds of arrest should be communicated as has been explained in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra).

9. Mr. Paul, learned counsel also relied on another two decisions of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No.3305/2025 and BA No.3338/2025, wherein also the bail was granted considering the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS.

10. Mr. Paul, learned counsel further submitted that the accused is the only bread earner of his family having children and the entire family is suffering due to his absence as there is no one to look after his family. He further submitted that the accused is a permanent resident of the address locality and there is no chance of his absconding and he will regularly appear before the learned Special Judge as and when the date is fixed by the Court.

11. Mr. Sarma, learned APP submitted in this regard that his earlier bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025, wherein the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is also discussed in detail and it is also considered by this Court that accused was well aware about the grounds of his arrest as the entire contraband was recovered from his conscious possession and that apart, he also led the police team for recovery of the remaining contraband.

12. Mr. Sarma, learned APP further submitted that at the time