Gauhati High Court
Sadiqul Islam vs The State Of Assam on 3 August, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010118552026
2026:GAU-AS:10673
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1544/2026
SADIQUL ISLAM
S/O JAMAR ALI R/O- DHINGBARI CHAPRI, P.S. JURIA, DISTRICT -
NAGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A R BAROOAH, MR GAURAV R DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 03-08-2026
Heard Mr. A. R. Barooah, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar,
learned Addl. P.P. for the state respondent.
2. This application, under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023, is preferred by accused Sadiqul Islam,
who has been languishing in jail hazoot since 06.12.2025, in connection with Manza Police Station
Case No: 29 of 2025 registered under Sections 21(C)/25/29 NDPS Act, pending before the learned
Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong, Diphu.
Page No.# 2/6
3. It is to be noted here that above noted case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by
one Madhuri Das, WSI (P) of Police, Manza Police Station on 05.12.2025.
4. The essence of allegation in the FIR, dated 05.12.2025, against the accused is that on
05.12.2025, he was found carrying a total of 39 Nos. of soap boxes (different Colours) in a vehicle
bearing Registration No. AS09L-9091, which were kept concealed inside the boot of the car, that was
modified to conceal those recovered soap boxes, containing some brown coloured powder suspected to
be illegal narcotic substances, Heroine, weighing 476 grams.
5. Mr. Barooah, learned counsel for the accused, at the time of hearing raised two issues.
Firstly, he pointed it out that while causing arrest and forwarding the accused, the I.O. had not
complied with the provision of Section 47 of BNSS. Secondly, he pointed out that no Notice under
Section 50 NDPS Act was given to the accused before conducting search of his person. He also
submits that there is discrepancy of time in the Arrest Memo and also in the Forwarding Report and
that the guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in
(1997) 1 SCC 416. He further submits that due to non compliance of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. He also submits that the grounds of arrest furnished to the accused person do not
disclose the factual basis of the arrest and are confined to the standard template without stating the
essential particulars of accusation and that there is discrepancy in respect of the time of arrest in the
Arrest Memo and Forwarding Report. He also submits that it is well settled in the case of Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar
v. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, and thereafter in Mihir Rajesh Shah
vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, that an accused
must be furnished with the actual “grounds of arrest” at the time of his arrest, in a language that he
understands, and that such “grounds” must contain the specific factual basis of the arrest.
5.1. Mr. Barooah also submits that since the accused was arrested in violation of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India, he is entitled to be released on bail.
6. Per contra Mr. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. submits that Section 47 of BNSS, is fully complied
with and the grounds of arrest have been furnished to the accused at the time of arrest. He also submits
that notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was given to the accused before conducting search of his
person and that even if this Section 50 notice is not given then also it is not fatal in as much as the
contraband substances were recovered from the vehicle driven by him not from his person. In support
of his submission he has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. vs.
Page No.# 3/6
Pawan Kumar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 350. He also submits that compliance or non
compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act has to be considered at the end of trial not at this stage as held in
the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172, by a
Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6.1. Mr. Lahkar also pointed it out that the contraband substances recovered from the possession of
the accused is of commercial quantity and as such the accused has to satisfy the twin requirements of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act and that the accused has failed to satisfy the twin requirements and on this
count alone the bail petition is liable to be dismissed.
6.2. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances Mr. Lahkar has contended to dismiss this petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates for both sides, this Court has carefully gone
through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the relevant provision
of law and also gone through the decision referred to by learned counsel for the accused and also by the
learned Addl. P.P.
8. It appears that the accused has been languishing in jail hazoot since 06.12.2025, and he has been
charged under Sections 21(C)/25/29 NDPS Act, and now the case is pending at the stage of trial and till
date one witness is examined. It also appears that the contraband substances recovered from the
possession of the accused is of commercial quantity i.e. 476 grams.
9. It also appears from the record of the learned Trial Court that before conducting search the I.O.
had given notice to the accused under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Of course, such notice is found not
available on the record. Even then it would not be fatal to the prosecution in as much as compliance or
non compliance of the provision of Section 50, is a matter of trial to be considered at the end of trial, as
held by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Baldev Singh (supra). It has
been held in the said case that whether or not the safeguards under Section 50 have been duly observed
must be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial. A finding on that issue
(one way or the other) is relevant for recording conviction or acquittal. The issue of compliance is a
matter of trial to be decided on the evidence (oral and documentary) produced during the trial. In view
of above, the submission of Mr. Baroouh that the accused is entitled to bail for non compliance of
Section 50 NDPS Act, cannot be concurred with.
10. Moving forward to the other limb of argument of Mr. Barooah, learned counsel for the accused
Page No.# 4/6
this Court finds that it is well settled in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan
Kumar (supra) that an accused must be furnished with the actual “grounds of arrest” at the time of
his arrest, in a language that he understands, and that such “grounds” must contain the specific factual
basis of the arrest. In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2026) 1 SCC 500, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further developed the framework toward a general
preference for written grounds in all cases under Section 47 BNSS, with limited exceptions and a two-
hour rule before remand, while still engaging with the earlier line of cases including Prabir
Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra).
10.1. But, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in (2025
INSC 979) decided on 14 August 2025 by a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, of
Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the position under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of
the CrPC (corresponding to Section 47 of the BNSS) as under:-
(i) Neither the Constitution nor the statute prescribes a specific form or insists on written
communication of the grounds of arrest in every case.
(ii) Substantial compliance is sufficient, and the arrested person must
be made aware of the grounds of arrest in substance (even if not
conveyed in writing), unless there is demonstrable prejudice or
denial of a fair opportunity to defend.
(iii) Mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the
arrest illegal (a prejudice-oriented test applies).
10.2. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case specifically has referred to and
clarified/distinguished its earlier decisions in Prabir Purkayastha (supra)
and Vihaan Kumar(supra) noted that reliance on those cases (which
emphasized written grounds, especially in the context of special statutes like
UAPA/PMLA or strict compliance) was misplaced on the facts before it, as those
turned on materially different statutory contexts and circumstances. In Vihaan
Page No.# 5/6
Kumar (supra) the Court itself had indicated that Article 22(1) is satisfied by
communicating sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds
in substance.
10.3. In the instant case, indisputably, the I.O. had furnished the written
grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest and the said fact is apparent from the
page No. 28 the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS and also from the page No.
31, the Arrest Memo. From a careful perusal of the said documents it cannot be
said that factual aspect is not mentioned therein. As held in the case of Sri
Darshan Etc.(supra) there appears to be substantial compliance and the
same is sufficient. The accused herein has been made aware of the grounds of
arrest in substance in writing, and further no demonstrable prejudice or denial
of a fair opportunity to defend him is shown by him. Therefore, this Court is also
unable to record concurrence with the submission of Mr. Baroouh, learned
counsel for the accused.
10.4. It is, however, a fact that in the Fowarding Report, the I.O. had not
mentioned the time of arrest. But in the notice under Section 47 and in the
Memo of Arrest, the time of arrest has clearly been mentioned. This Court is of
the view that not mentioning the time of arrest in the Forwarding Report, itself
furnish any ground to enlarge the accused on bail.
11. Indisputably, 476 grams of suspected Heroine was recovered from the possession of the accused.
The factum of aforesaid items being the commercial quantity is also not disputed by the accused.
Therefore, the accused has to satisfy the requirement of Section 37(1) (b) (ii) of NDPS Act.
11.1. This aspect has been dealt with by a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in NCB vs.
Mohit Agarwal, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1001-1002 of 2022 [arising out of
petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6128-29 of 2021], decided
on 19 July, 2022.
Page No.# 6/6
11.2. Further, in the case of Union of India vs. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Pappu, in
Criminal Appeal No.952 of 2023 [Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 2351 OF
2023], decided on 28 March, 2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the order of
granting bail by the Allahabad High Court, to the accused involving in commercial quantity of
contraband substance, has held as under:-
“In view of the above provisions, it is implicit that no
person accused of an offence involving trade in commercial
quantity of narcotics is liable to be released on bail unless
the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such an offence and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
12. In the instant case, from the materials on record, specially from the record received from the
learned court below and also from the submission of learned counsel for the accused, this Court is
unable to derive its satisfaction that there exists any reasonable ground for believing that the accused is
not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail. Instead, from the
order dated 10.05.2026 of the learned Trial Court, indicates that the accused is also involved in similar
case under Juria P.S. Case No. 93/2025.
13. In view of above, and also in view of the nature and gravity of the offence and the punishment
prescribed for the same this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the privilege of bail
under Section 483 of the BNSS to the accused and therefore, the same stands dismissed.
14. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the Trial and to complete the same as
soon as practicable.
15. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
