GAHC010217042025 2025:GAU-AS:16248

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./3291/2025

AMINUR ISLAM AND ANR S/O CHALIBOR RAHMAN

R/O BAOLIA

P.S. MANKACHAR

DIST. SOUTH SALMARA, ASSAM,

PIN-783131

2: NUR AMIN

S/O LT. KHOTOM ALI @ KHATEM ALI

RESIDENT OF BOALIA

PS MANKACHAR

DISTRICT SOUTH SALMARA

ASSAM

PIN- 78313

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MR K THAKUR

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

O R D E R Heard Mr. K. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K.

Date : 28.11.2025.

Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (1) Aminur Islam and (2) Nur Amin in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 42/2025, arising out of Mankachar P. S. Case No. 70/2025, under Sections 22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, which is pending before the Court of learned Special Judge cum District & Sessions Judge, South Salmara.

3. The scanned copy of the Trial Court Record along with the Case Diary has already been received and I have perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected with the alleged offence, as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner No.1 is in the custody since last 213 days and the petitioner No.2 is in the custody for 140 days. Further, there is no recovery from the possession of the accused/petitioner No.2 and he got arrested in connection with this case only on the basis of the statement made by the co-accused persons. Mr. Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as there is no proper communication of ground of arrest as required under the law and as per the guidelines of the Honble Supreme Court, wherein the observation was made in that regard in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the accused petitioners were provided with the notice under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, 2023 but from the contents of the said notice, it is seen that there is no specification of the contraband which was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioners. There is also no specification as to what was the quantity of recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused petitioners. Further, he submitted that from the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, it also reveals that the notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 though it is stated to be issued to the family members/friends/relative of the accused petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Thus, there is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which is a good ground for considering the bail application for the present petitioner.

5. In that context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Criminal Appeal No.2195/2025 and other analogous matter, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the mandate contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is unambiguous and clear in nature, it provides that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as they can be. It further provides that the arrested person has the right to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This constitutional mandate has been effectuated by the legislature in Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (now Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) which provides that an arrested person shall be forthwith communicated with the grounds o