Non-compliance with mandatory arrest procedures, specifically the failure to provide specific grounds of arrest (Section 47 BNSS) and the absence of independent/family witnesses in the memorandum of arrest (Section 36 BNSS), warrants the grant of bail as it infringes upon constitutional rights to liberty.

ORDER

Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, NCB, representing the respondent.

2. The instant application has been filed, under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, for granting bail to the accused-applicant, who was arrested on 23.06.2025, in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 07/2025, registered under Section 8(c) read with Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The gist of the allegation as could be seen from the application is that, on 23.06.2025, the officials of NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit had arrested one Guriya Devi and Manju Devi and seized 0.541 KGs of alleged heroin. It was alleged that the accused-applicant had allegedly assisted the aforesaid Guriya Devi and Manju Devi in the aforesaid offence. With the aforesaid allegation, the accused-applicant was arrested on 23.06.2025 by the NCB officials.

4. Accordingly, a case was registered as NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under the aforesaid sections and since then, the accused-applicant is in judicial custody till date.

5. Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant was only informed about the reason of arrest while he was arrested, but, he was not informed about the grounds of his arrest, which is in violation of the fundamental rights of the accused-applicant granted by the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant was arrested merely on suspicion and no such alleged heroin was ever recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant, rather, the alleged heroin was recovered from the co-accused namely, Guriya Devi and Manju Devi. The learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant might have been arrested only with suspicion due to probable implication by the co-accused about his involvement due to certain personal grudge or enmity against the accused-applicant. The learned counsel submits that the statement of the co-accused, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used against the accused-applicant, which is already settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments. The learned counsel submits that while arresting the accused-applicant, the NCB officials had not followed the mandates of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS as well as the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in that regard.

6. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that a bare perusal of the contents of Section 47 of the BNSS, notice issued to the accused applicant clearly reveals that no substantial grounds have been stated in the notice. In fact, the accused-applicant was only informed that he was being arrested in connection with the NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which is non-bailable and also the fact that he would be produced before the Hon’ble Court. The accused-applicant was also intimated that detailed reasons of arrest have been explained to him, in writing. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that since no specific grounds of his arrest have been mentioned in the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS, there is a clear violation of the mandates of Section 47 of the BNSS, which is in violation of Articles 22(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India, affecting the personal liberty of the accused-applicant.

7. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that there is also a