Abdul Kalam Vs the Union of India

granting regular bail to the accused applicant in connection with NDPS Case No. 141/2024 in connection with 01/CL/NDPS/METH/HQRS.PREV/SH/2024-25 dated 29.04.2024 registered under Sections 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 of NDPS Act pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Cachar, Silchar.

¶20

3. The accused applicant was arrested and behind the jail custody since 30.04.2024.

¶21

4. The gist of the case is that the accused applicant along with another person were apprehended by the Customs Officers on receipt of certain information at Khasipur, road side of Silchar-Jiribam road holding some kind of suspicious packets in their hands and waiting for someone to come. The Customs Officers in presence of panchas got their names divulged as Masum Ahmed Choudhury and Abdul Kalam, the accused applicant. It was alleged that both confessed carrying a huge quantity of narcotic drugs, namely, Methamphetamine. It was alleged that when the 2 (two) black polythene, containing 3 (three) numbers of packets, one packet covered with orange colored polythene and wrapped with black cello tape and another two packets were wrapped in a brown colored paper/envelope cover with white colored cello tape, were opened in presence of the Panchas and the accused, it was found that a total no. of 107 plastic sachets of different colours containing suspected Methamphetamine.

¶22

5. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet on 24.10.2024 before the learned Trial Court and after taking cognizance of the case, charges were framed against the accused persons under Section 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 of the NDPS Act and,

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

at this stage, the case is pending at the stage of evidence before the learned Trial Court.

¶25

6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that while arresting the accused applicant, the investigating authority has not complied with the established procedures under Section 50, Section 50 (A) and Section 41 (B) of Cr.P.C. respectively. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant further submits that although Section 37 of NDPS provides for strict provisions in respect of granting bail to the persons arrested under provisions of NDPS Act, the constitutional mandates specific to the fundamental rights granted under Part-III of the Constitution shall override the provisions mandated under Section 37 of NDPS Act in case of violation of any of the Fundamental rights, as the liberty of an individual can deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law. The learned counsel submits that noncompliance of the mandates of the aforesaid sections of BNSS clearly violated the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India which goes to the root of the matter and makes the arrest of the accused person illegal.

¶26

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused applicant places reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Kasireddy Upendra Reddy -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors ; reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1228 , Pankaj Bansal -vs- Union of India and Ors ; reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana & Anr ; reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) ; reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 .

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

8. Per contra, Ms. P.S. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel for the Customs contended that though no detailed grounds of arrest were given, argues that this is not a mandate under Section 50 and Section 50 (A) of the Cr.P.C. until the accused applicant alleges prejudice. In support she relies on the decision of State of Karnatakia -vs-Sri Darshan Etc ; reported in ( 2025) SCC Online SC 1702 . Referring to the arrest memo under Section 41 (B) Ms. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel for the Customs contends that the full particulars of the case were given to the accused applicant and therefore, non furnishing of detailed grounds of arrest should not prejudice the accused applicant and that being the position, the arrest suffers from no irregularity.

¶29

9. This Court has gone through the materials available in the TCR as well as heard the submissions made by the respective counsels.

¶30

10. Taking into account the contents of the notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C., notice under Section 50(A) Cr.P.C. as well as the Arrest Memo, this Court is of the opinion that the mandates and the ratio as have been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Pankaj Bansal (Supra) ; Vihaan Kumar (Supra); Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and Sri Darshan (Supra) were apparently not complied with in the instant case. The accused applicant was served with a notice under Section 50 Cr.P.C. which only reveals the fact that the accused applicant has been informed about his arrest in connection with the case referred in the notice which is non-bailable. The notice also provided the date and time of arrest and the place of arrest. The notice apparently did not provide the grounds of his arrest and the notice cannot be termed as a notice in full compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C., as has been explained and mandated by the Hon’ble

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

Apex Court in the above mentioned cases. The notice under Section 50 (A) of Cr.P.C. did not contain any grounds of the arrest rather contained simple information about his arrest and that he would be forwarded to the Court of learned CJM, Cachar, Silchar. The Arrest Memo under Section 41 (B) of Cr.P.C. was also not signed by any of the family members of the arrested accused person or any respectable person of the locality where arrest was made, thereby not complied with the provisions of Section 41 (B) of Cr.P.C.

¶33

11. In view of the aforesaid infirmities in arrest of the accused applicant, this Court is without any hesitation that the mandates of the Section 50, 50(A) and 41 (B) have not been complied with in arrest of the accused applicant.

¶34

12. In view of the aforesaid finding, this Court is of the considered view that while arresting the accused applicant, the mandates of the settled law have not been complied with and therefore, it merits the accused applicant to be released on bail with certain strict conditions for ends of justice.

¶35

13. Accordingly, the accused applicant, namely, Abdul Kalam is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only, with 2 (two) suitable sureties, one being a local Government servant to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Cachar, Silchar with the following conditions:-

¶36

( a) the accused applicant shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Cachar, Silchar;

¶37

(b) the accused applicant shall not hamper and/ or tamper with the evidence of the case;

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

(c) the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶40

(d) the accused applicant shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), before the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Cachar, Silchar;

¶41

(e) the accused applicant shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Cachar, Silchar and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the aforesaid Court;

¶42

(f) the accused applicant shall appear before the Officer-in-Charge of Silchar Police Station on 1^st day of every week till completion of the trial; and

¶43

(g) the accused applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No.3, Cachar, Silchar on each and every date of appearance during the trial, unless permitted by the aforesaid Court.

¶44

14. Accordingly, the instant Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶45

15. Let the TCR be sent back immediately.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Kalam v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kalam v. the Union of India

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

Royal Sundaram G.I.C. Ltd. Vs Smt. Bharati Bhuyan Konwar and 2 Ors.

Royal Sundaram G.I.C. Ltd. Vs Smt. Bharati Bhuyan Konwar and 2 Ors.

Royal Sundaram G.I.C. Ltd. Vs Smt. Bharati Bhuyan Konwar and 2 Ors.

Sujit Dutta Vs the State of Assam

Makibul Khan Vs the State of Assam

Bacha Ray Vs the State of Assam