Gauhati High Court
Md Farish vs The Union Of India on 6 January, 2026
Author: K.R. Surana
Bench: Kalyan Rai Surana
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010159142025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/50/2025
MD FARISH
S/O LATE WAHID ALI, R/O VILL- SANGAIYAMPHAM PART-II, CHERAPUR,
P.O.- WANGJING, P.S.- THOUBAL, DIST- THOUBAL, MANIPUR, PIN-795148
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NARCOTIC CONTROL
BUREAU (NCB), GUWAHATI. MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT
OF INTERNAL SECURITY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A BASUMATARY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Date : 06-01-2026
Date on which judgment is reserved : 28.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
Page No.# 2/18
the operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
(CAV)
(K.R. Surana, J)
Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2) By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner, namely, Md. Farish, son of Late Wahid Ali, resident of
village- Sangaiypham Part-II, under P.S. and District- Thoubal, Manipur, has
prayed to release him in connection with NDPS Case No. 12/2025.
Prosecution case, in brief:
3) A final complaint dated 22.10.2024, was filed by the Narcotic
Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit (hereinafter referred to as "NCB-GZU" for
short), before the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro). The said
case was registered as NDPS Case No. 140/2024, and put up before the Court
of the learned Special Judge (NDPS), Guwahati, on 23.04.2024.
4) As per the complaint filed by the NCB-GZU, the case of the
prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.10.2023, a secret information was received
from a reliable source that the petitioner and Md. Jayad Khan, another co-
accused, would be trafficking about 300-400 gram Heroin in Maruti Swift vehicle
bearing registration no. AS-01-AE-8182 and they would be passing towards
Barpeta from Hajo side. Accordingly, the information was reduced in writing. It
is projected that after following due process and upon receipt of due
Page No.# 3/18
authorization, a team was constituted to conduct search and seizure. Request
was made to two persons to be independent witnesses. On 28.10.2023, at
about 9.30 pm., the said vehicle was seen coming from Amingaon side, was
stopped by the NCB team. The vehicle was stopped and two accused persons,
including the petitioner had admitted that 32 packets of Heroin were kept
concealed in the car, out of which 11 packets were kept concealed in a special
cavity near the co-driver seat, between co-driver seat and co-driver gate within
the floor of the car; 11 packets of Heroin was concealed in a special cavity near
the driver's seat between the driver's seat and driver gate within the floor of the
car; 5 packets of Heroin were kept concealed in a special cavity under the co-
driver's seat in the floor of the car; and 5 packets of Heroin was kept concealed
in a special cavity under the driver's seat in the floor of the car.
5) It was foggy and there was less light, and a car mechanic was
required for a thorough search and moreover, public had started gathering
around the NCB team and occupants of the vehicle, creating concern about the
safety of the intercepted persons as vehicles were moving on the Highway.
Therefore, the NCB team had departed from the spot at about 9.45 pm along
with the two independent witnesses and intercepted vehicle and reached the
NCB Office at Guwahati at about 11.00 pm. A mechanic, named in the complaint
was called and as shown by the petitioner, search of the car was initiated at
about 11.15 pm. The complaint contains the description of as to how the place
where Heroin was concealed was found with the help of the car mechanic and
recovery and regarding the manner the seizure of 32 packets of the contraband
Heroin was made from the hiding place.
6) On completion of investigation of the case, registered as NCB
Crime No. 18/2023, under Sections 8(c) read with Sections 21(c) and 29 of the
Page No.# 4/18
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to
as the "NDPS Act" for short), the NCB-GZU had submitted a complaint, before
the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. The said
complaint case was registered and numbered before the Court of Special Judge,
NDPS, Guwahati, as NDPS Case No. 140/2024. By virtue of order dated
07.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup
(Metro), Guwahati, charges were framed against three accused persons,
including the petitioner under Sections 21(c) read with Section 29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
arrest and judicial custody of the petitioner is vitiated on the following two
grounds:
a. Firstly, the vehicle was intercepted outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the Court of Session Judge, Kamrup (Metro), where the charges
against the petitioner were submitted.
b. Secondly, the arrest was made without adherence to the compliance
of the provisions of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India, because
while arresting the petitioner, the grounds of his arrest was not
disclosed in writing to the petitioner and no information was provided
to the immediate family members or friends of the petitioner, so
nominated by the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has referred to the provisions of Sections 50 and 51 of the
NDPS Act and Sections 41A and 60A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
8) In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has cited the following cases, viz., Vihaan Kumar v. The State of
Page No.# 5/18
Haryana & Anr., 2025 (3) Supreme 363, Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh, (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 905, (iii) Pankaj Bansal v. Union of
India & Ors., (2024) 7 SCC 576, (iv) Prabir Purakayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254, (v) In the matter of: Madhu Limaye, (1969) 1 SCC 292 , (vi)
Vimal Kishore v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 56.
Submissions of the learned standing counsel for the respondent:
9) Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has
submitted that there was due compliance of the mandatory requirement of law
while arresting the petitioner. Moreover, due to the reasons assigned, the
conduct of search and seizure was necessitated to be done in the office of the
NCB.
10) In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for
the NCB had cited the following cases, viz., (i) State of Karnataka v. Sri
Darshan, (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 1201, (ii) M/s. A.P. Electrical Corporation V. The
Tehsildar & Ors., (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 407, (iii) Vihaan Kumar v. State of
Haryana & Ors., (2025) 0 Supreme(SC) 283, (iv) Prabir Purakayastha v. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, (v) National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 0 Supreme(SC) 1050 , (vi) Jitul Ali v. The Union of
India, represented by Narcotics Control Bureau, 2025 GAU-AS 7914.
Reasons and decision:
11) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides. Also perused the writ petition and documents annexed thereto and
the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent. Also considered the cases
cited by both sides at the Bar.
12) It may be stated at the outset that the affidavit-in-opposition
Page No.# 6/18
filed by the respondent is nothing but a reproduction of the parawise comments,
which is not at all appreciated.
13) It may be stated at the outset that this is not an application for
bail. The prayer in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
is to issue a writ to release the petitioner.
14) In the said context, it may be stated that in paragraph 8 of the
case of Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma, 2025 SCC Online 240 ,
the Supreme Court of India had held as follows:
"Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental
rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have
been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of
the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The
reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court
to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution."
15) In paragraph 14 of the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), cited by
both sides, it has been held to the effect that when a person is arrested without
warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be,
after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 as well and it was also held that on the failure to comply with
the requirement of informing grounds of arrest, as soon as may be, after the
arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Accordingly, it was also held that once the arrest is
held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a
second. In paragraph 19 thereof, it has been held that Section 50 Cr.P.C. cannot
have the effect of diluting the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India.
16) The vehicle through which the petitioner and a co-accused were
Page No.# 7/18
trafficking contraband narcotic, i.e. Heroin, was stopped/ intercepted on
28.10.2023, at about 9.30 pm. At 9.45 pm., the vehicle and its occupants were
taken to NCB Office at Guwahati and they reached the NCB Office at Guwahati
at about 11.00 pm. At about 11.45 pm., the car mechanic was brought and
search was initiated at about 11.15 pm. The petitioner was arrested at 5.00 am.
on 29.10.2023.
17) The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of
Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), to show from paragraph 14 thereof as to how
in that case the grounds of arrest was prepared in the said case.
18) In paragraph 10 of the case of Madhu Limaye (supra), cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India vide referring
to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India by referring to 6th Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America and Article XXXIV of the
Japanese Constitution of 1947 had stated that in England whenever an arrest is
made without a warrant, the arrested person has a right to be informed not only
that he is being arrested, but also the "reasons or grounds" for the arrest.
19) In paragraph 29 of the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra), cited by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been observed that if the it is only if
the arrested person has knowledge of facts that he/ she would be in a position
to plead and prove before the Special Court that their grounds to believe that
he/ she is not guilty of such offence, so as to avail the relief of bail and
accordingly, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that communication of
the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India
is meant to serve this higher purpose and must be given due importance.
Moreover, in paragraph 35 thereof the Supreme Court of India had directed that
henceforth a copy of written ground of arrest is necessary to be furnished to the
Page No.# 8/18
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The said judgment
was delivered on 03.10.2023.
20) The case of Vimal Kishore v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 All 56 , was
also cited on the point that non-adherence to the provision of Clause (1) of
Article 22 of the Constitution of India, vitiated the arrest of the petitioner.
21) Therefore, it is necessary that at this juncture, reference may be
made to the Memorandum of Arrest in this case in hand, bearing Ref. No.
07/NCB/GZU/Heroin/18/2023 dated 29.10.2023, which had been prepared by
the Intelligence Officer, NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati. The contents
thereof is quoted below:-
Seen
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup (Metro) District, Guwahati
30-10-23
NCB Guwahati Crime No. 18/2023
Fax: 0361-2339375
Tel: 0361-2963253 Government of India
Email: [email protected] Ministry of Home Affairs
VIP Road, Rupkonwar Path, Chachal Department of Internal Security
Khanapara, Guwahati-781022 Narcotics Control Bureau
Guwahati Zonal Unit,
Guwahati
MEMORANDUM OF ARREST
Ref. No. 07/NCB/GZU/Heroin/18/2023
In consequence of /connection with the recovery and seizure of 409 grams
Heroin in connection with above referred case under Section: 43 of The Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 29.10.2023 at
05:00 AM at NCB Office, Rupkonwarpath, Chachal, Guwahati Assam, I do hereby
arrest Md. Farish (D.O.B. 10/02/1995) S/o- Md. Wahid Ali R/o- Sangaiyumpham
Part-II, Cherapur, City- Sanaiyumpham, P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Thoubal, District-
Thoubal, State Manipur-795148, under Section 42 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Page No.# 9/18
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 29.10.2023 at 1800 hrs at the
office of Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati, Assam on reasonable belief/prima
facie proof that the said seized contraband/articles/documents are liable to
confiscation under Section: 60 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (as amended) and the aforesaid Md. Farish is liable to proceedings
under Section 8(c) read with u/s 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) for
contravention of the provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (as amended) which have already been duly explained to him
The aforesaid arrested person is being forwarded to the competent authority
within twenty four hours for his remand to judicial custody.
Given under my hand and SEAL:
Signature with date.
Sd/- (illegible) 29/10/2023
Name & Designation.................
ANIL KUSHWAHA
Intelligence Officer
Narcotics Control Bureau
Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati
Sd/- (illegible of Md. Farish) 29/10/23
To.
Md. Farish (D.O.B. 10/02/1995) S/o-Md. Wahid All
Rio-Sangaiyumpham Part-II, Cherapur, City-Sanaiyumpham
P.O. Wangjing, P.S. Thoubal, District- Thoubal, State- Manipur-795148
Md. Farish gave intimation of his arrest to his wife. namely Yasmin on her
mobile phone 8014438084 at about 08:45 PM on 29.10.2023.
Sd/- (illegible of Md. Farish) 29/10/23 Sd/- (Illegible) 19/10/2023
ANIL KUSHWAHA
Intelligence Officer
Narcotics Control Bureau
Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati
22) Thus, not only the Memorandum of Arrest dated 29.10.2023,
was served on the petitioner within a reasonable time of the arrest of the
petitioner, but on the same day, i.e. 29.10.2023, at about 8.45 am., the
petitioner was allowed to intimate his wife, namely, Yasmin, over her mobile
Page No.# 10/18
number 8014438084, about his arrest, which is due compliance of the
provisions of Section 50A Cr.P.C. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of
Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Vimal Kishore
(supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been found to be
violated.
23) The petitioner had also been served with a notice dated
29.10.2023, under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. The contents of the said notice is
quoted below:-
NOTICE U/S 50 Cr.P.C
Shri : Md. Farish
S/o : Md. Wahid Ali seen
Village : Sangaiyumpham Part II, Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Post Office: Wangjing Kamrup (Metro) District,
Police Station: Thoubal Guwahati
District : Thoubal 30-10-23
State : Manipur-795148
Case No. : NCB Guwahati Case No. 18/2023
Seizure address: At NCB Office, Guwahati, Assam
U/S : 8(c) to be read with 21 (c) & 29 of NDPS Act. 1985,
You are hereby informed that you are arrested in connection with the above
reference case and the case is non-bailable. So, you are forwarded to the Hon'ble
Court. You may submit petition before the Hon'ble Court for your bail.
Sd/- (illegible) 29.10.23 Sd/- (illegible)
Signature of Arrestee Signature of I.O.
ANIL KUSHWAHA
Intelligence officer
Narcotics Control Bureau
Guwahati Zonal Unit,
Guwahati
Certified to be True True/Copy
Sd/- (illegible) Sd/- (illegible) 28/5/25
Page No.# 11/18
Comparing Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Office of the District & Sessions Judge Office of the District And
Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati Sessions Judge
Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati
24) Thus, there has been due compliance of the mandatory
provisions regarding arrest of the petitioner, by service of notice under Section
50 Cr.P.C.
25) The first point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that the vehicle was intercepted outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of
Session Judge, Kamrup (Metro), where the charges against the petitioner were
submitted is taken up first.
26) The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, on
being intercepted on 28.10.2023, had confessed to the NCB that 32 packets of
heroin were kept concealed in the car, out of which 11 packets were kept
concealed in a special cavity near the co-driver seat, between co-driver seat and
co-driver gate within the floor of the car; 11 packets of heroin were concealed
in a special cavity near the driver's seat, between the driver's seat and driver
gate within the floor of the car; 5 packets of heroin were kept concealed in a
special cavity under the co-driver's seat in the floor of the car; and 5 packets of
heroin were kept concealed in a special cavity under the driver's seat in the floor
of the car.
27) It is not the case of the petitioner that the heroin was not kept
in a concealed condition in four specially constructed concealed and/or secret
cavities in the car in which heroin was being trafficked. In the considered
opinion of the Court, those four concealed/ secret cavities manufactured in the
car could not have been easily located and opened without the assistance of the
car mechanic. It is not expected, by any stretch of imagination that NCB and/or
Page No.# 12/18
any other police force would be ready with equipment and tools to open
concealed cavities that may had been secretly kept concealed inside the car
used for trafficking drugs. It is not also expected that the officials and sleuths of
NCB would stay exposed overnight with accused, heroin and witnesses on a
highway till a mechanic is located and arrives at the location. Thus, the
explanation by the NCB in the complaint that owing to security concerns and
necessity of the situation, and the foggy night, the vehicle with concealed
contraband, and accused was taken to NCB-GZU, where they reached by 11.00
pm., and with the arrival of a car mechanic, the process of recovery of heroin
was initiated at 11.15 pm.
28) Thus, the shifting of the concerned vehicle from the location at
Highway, where it was intercepted, to NCB-GZU Office at Guwahati, cannot be
held to vitiate the search and seizure, so as to entitle the petitioner to be
released. Moreover, it cannot be said that there was undue delay in taking the
car to the secured place. It is also not the projected case of the petitioner that
the car was tampered in any manner so as to cast a doubt regarding the
manner and/or propriety of the NCB in the conduct of search and seizure of
heroin, a contraband psychotropic substance. Thus, the first point of
determination raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is answered in the
negative and against the petitioner by holding that the seizure of the
contraband at the NCB-GZU, which is away from the place where the vehicle
carrying contraband was intercepted has not vitiated the search and consequent
seizure of contraband heroin vitiates the same and entitles the petitioner to be
released.
29) The second point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was arrested without adherence to the compliance of the
Page No.# 13/18
provisions of Article 21(1) of the Constitution of India is taken up now.
30) It may be stated that the petitioner has alleged that while
arresting him, the grounds of his arrest were not disclosed in writing to the
petitioner and no information was provided to the immediate family members or
friends of the petitioner, so nominated by the petitioner.
31) From the contents of the memorandum of arrest, the reasons for
arresting the petitioner have been fully disclosed.
32) At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of
Section 47 of the BNSS as well as Section 50 of the erstwhile Cr.P.C.:
Section 47 of BNSS:
Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail- (1) Every
police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other
grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any
person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the
person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange
for sureties on his behalf.
Section 50 of Cr.P.C.:
Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail (1) Every
police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other
grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any
person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the
person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange
for sureties on his behalf.
33) Therefore, from Section 47(1) of BNSS, 2023, the requirement
of law is that on arresting a person without warrant, every police officer or other
person arresting any person without warrant is required to communicate to him
full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested, " or other grounds for
such arrest". The same is also prescribed in Section 50 of the Cr.P.C.
Page No.# 14/18
34) Therefore, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has
made a very strenuous argument to impress upon the Court that non-furnishing
of the ground of arrest would be fatal and has supported his submission with
several case citations, but in this case, the contents of the memorandum of
arrest are specific to the petitioner and give the description of the offence for
which he has been arrested, and it also contains the sections of law based on
which the petitioner has been arrested. Thus, from the contents of the
memorandum of arrest, as extracted hereinbefore, the Court is of the
considered opinion that the said document contains " the full particulars of the
offence for which he is arrested", which is in scrupulous compliance of the
provisions of section 50 Cr.P.C., which is nearly para materia to the provision of
Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023. Thus, the said memorandum of arrest is also
found to be in compliance of Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
35) The requirement of law under both the hereinbefore quoted
provisions of Section 50(1) of Cr.P.C. and Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023, is
that the arresting officer is required to communicate to the arrested person " full
particulars of the offence for which he is arrested" "or other grounds for such
arrest". The use of word "or" cannot be interpreted under any cannons of
interpretation of statute to be read as "and" so as to mean that not only the
arrested person is required to be communicated, (a) full particulars of the
offence for which he is arrested "and" (b) to also communicate to the petitioner
the ground of arrest.
36) In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that the
words of statutory provision must be understood and read in its plain and
ordinary meaning, which is the golden rule of interpretation. Therefore, the use
of word "or" in between "communicate to him full particulars of the offence for
Page No.# 15/18
which he is arrested" and "other grounds for such arrest" must be interpreted
that communication of either of the two would be sufficient and/ or that
"grounds of arrest" is interchangeably used with communication of " full
particulars of the offence", as appears in the provisions of Section 50(1) of the
Cr.P.C.; Section 47(1) of the BNSS, 2023.
37) The provision of Section 52(1) of the NDPS Act is quoted
hereinbelow:
Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized (1) Any officer arresting a person
under section 41, section 42, section 43 or section 44 shall, as soon as may be,
inform him of the grounds for such arrest.
38) On a perusal of the above quoted provisions of Section 52 of the
NDPS Act, it appears that, in a departure from Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. and Section
47(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the requirement under sub-Section (1) of Section 52
of the NDPS Act is that any officer arresting a person under Section 41 to 44 of
the said Act is required to inform the arrested person of the " grounds for such
arrest". In this case, a "memorandum of arrest" was provided to the petitioner
on 29.10.2023, the contents of which have been quoted hereinbefore. The same
amounts to informing the petitioner of the " grounds for such arrest".
Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that, on the contents of the
memorandum of arrested which are extracted hereinbefore, there is due
compliance in communicating to the petitioner the "grounds of his arrest".
39) In paragraph 22 of the case of Prabir Purakayastha (supra), cited
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court of India has
observed that the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in paragraph 29 and 30 thereof, it
has been held by referring to Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution
Page No.# 16/18
of India that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing. In
paragraph 38 thereof, it has been held that "reasons for arrest" are formal in
nature and can be generally attributed to any person arrested on accusation of
an offence, whereas the "grounds of arrest" are personal in nature and specific
to the person arrested. However, in the present case in hand, the law as laid
down in the case of Prabir Purakayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra), is
not seen to be violated.
40) Thus, in light of the discussions above and on discussion of the
cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is of the
considered opinion that by providing the petitioner the memorandum of arrest
on 18.12.2022, the petitioner has been communicated the "grounds of his
arrest", which contain the description of huge quantity of drugs and
psychotropic substances seized and the provisions of law contravened by the
petitioner for which he was arrested. The said memorandum of arrest is specific
to the petitioner.
41) It may be mentioned that this is not an application for bail.
Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to satisfy itself with the twin
requirement of Section 37 of the NDPS Act before enlarging an accused on bail.
Hence, no discussion is being made in this order regarding the decision of the
Supreme Court of India in the case of (i) Union of India v. Ajay Kumar Singh @
Pappu, (2023) 0 Supreme (SC) 285, (ii) Narcotics Control Bureau v. Mohit
Aggarwal, AIR 2022 SC 3444 and (iii) Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, AIR 2022 SC 3386.
42) The learned counsel for the petitioner had cited the case of
Madhu Limaye (supra) to submit that if the arrest and detention is illegal, then a
habeas corpus petition would be maintainable. However, in light of the
Page No.# 17/18
discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that the arrest of the
petitioner cannot be held to be illegal and therefore, the case of Madhu Limaye
(supra), would not be of any aid to the petitioner.
43) As per news available in the internet portal of Gplus, a network
magazine from Guwahati, in the year 2023, the Assam Police had seized drugs
having a street value of about Rs.718.00 Crore, which includes 164 Kg. heroin;
29,114 Kg. ganja; 162 Kg. opium; 34,04,119 yaba tablets; 5,85,492 bottles of
cough syrup and arrested about 4,719 drug traffickers. These figures do not
include the drugs seized by agencies other than Assam Police. These figures
would show that it is high time that drug traffickers must be treated as a
separate class of crime against the Country.
44) In light of the discussions above, the Court is inclined to pass
the following:
ORDER
45) The prayer made in this writ petition to issue writ to release the petitioner is rejected.
46) Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed.
47) There shall be no order as to cost.
48) Nothing contained in this order shall prejudice either side during the trial of NDPS Case No. 140/2024, pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, at Guwahati.
49) It may be mentioned that normally when prayer for bail made in a bail application is rejected, it does not preclude the petitioner from filing a fresh application for bail. Therefore, it is clarified that the same principle would Page No.# 18/18 not be attracted in respect of prayers made in a writ petition.
JUDGE JUDGE. Comparing Assistant Digitally signed Parimit by Parimita Kalita a Kalita Date: 2026.01.08 23:24:09 -08'00'