Salim Uddin Vs the State of Assam

2. This application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Salim Uddin, who has been detained behind the bars since 16.06.2024 in connection with NDPS Case No. 80/2024 pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon under Sections 21(C)/29 of

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

NDPS Act, 1985.

¶18

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.06.2024, one P. Rajkhowa, WSI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Boko Police Station, inter alia, alleging that an information was received through reliable sources that one Nasir Uddin @ Nasir Bhai, who is a known narcotic peddler would be carrying prohibited narcotic drugs in a Maruti vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-FW-3878. Accordingly, a police team was constituted and a naka checking was arranged in front of Boko Police Station. During naka checking, one vehicle bearing No. AS-01-FQ-3128 was intercepted. During search of the said vehicle, 339 grams of suspected heroin were recovered therefrom which were kept in 30 soap boxes. On receipt of this FIR, Boko PS Case No. 272/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid on 02.10.2024 against the present petitioner and two others under Sections 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars since the date of his arrest on 16.06.2024 and only four out of ten listed prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. He submits that in this case two other co-accused persons, namely, Nasir Uddin and Atiqur Rahman were already allowed to go on bail on the grounds of violation of their fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶20

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also approached this Court seeking bail on the ground that no grounds of arrest was communicated to him at the time of his arrest and, therefore, his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

has been violated in this case. He further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ” , reported in “ (2025) 5 SCC 799, such infringement of constitutional mandate of communicating grounds of arrest as soon as an arrestee is arrested would render the arrest of such an arrestee itself illegal and on that count such an arrestee may be allowed to go on bail. He submits that in the instant case though notice under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. was served on him on 17.06.2024, however, said notice does not contain anything apart from the police station case number and the penal provisions involved in the case. He further submits that the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner where also not mentioned in the said notice and, therefore, in term of the observation of the Apex Court in the case of “ Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra), he is entitled to get bail in this case.

¶23

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantity of contraband involved in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable to this case. However, he fairly submits that in the notice under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. which was served on the petitioner, a copy of which is available in the records, no basic facts which necessitated his arrest have been mentioned therein.

¶24

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶25

8. It appears that as the notices which were served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. does not contain any grounds of arrest neither it mentions about the basic facts which necessitated

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

his arrest in the above noted case, there has been a clear violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS.

¶28

9. The infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has rendered his arrest illegal in terms of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of “ Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” (supra) and, therefore, on that count, the petitioner is entitled to get bail.

¶29

10. In view of the above submissions, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only with two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon, with following conditions:-

¶30

i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 80/2024, which is pending in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon;

¶31

ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

¶32

iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court;

¶33

iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as mobile number and other contact details before the Trial Court;

¶34

v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and

¶37

vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶38

11. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Salim Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Uddin v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rokibul Khan Vs the State of Assam

Nazir Kazi Alias Boga Vs the State of Assam

Muksedul Siddique Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jintu Borgohain Vs the State of Assam

Azaharuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam

Manak Ram and Anr. Vs the Union of India