Rusthana Begum @ Rusthana Bem vs The State Of Assam

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./972/2025

RUSTHANA BEGUM @ RUSTHANA BEM W/O NAJRUL ISLAM VILL-SHERALIPUR P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

ORDER

22.04.2025

Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. B. Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

2. By this second bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking bail by the petitioner, namely, Rusthana Begum @ Rusthana Bem, in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 61/2023 arising out of Page No.# 2/5

Badarpur PS Case No. 148/2023 registered under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act.

3. The factual matrix leading to the present case is that an FIR has been lodged before the OC Badarpur PS on 08.06.2023 alleging inter alia that on 07.06.2023 at 7.20 PM, an information was received by the informant from reliable source that one person namely, Sahidul Alom is going to deal illegal narcotic contraband in Masly area under Malua PICP. Accordingly, a GD entry was recorded vide Malua PICP GDE No. 105 dated 07.06.2023 and after taking authority letter from OC Badarpur P.S., the staff of Badarpur P.S. conducted search in the rented house of the petitioner and recovered commercial quantity of YABA tablet. Thereafter, the petitioner along with co-accused were arrested.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case and she became the victim of circumstances. The petitioner is a house wife having four minor children who are dependent on her and she was never implicated in any criminal cases earlier at any point of time.

5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the seized contraband was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, although her signature was taken subsequently in the seizure list. In fact, an altercation took place between the petitioner, her husband and the co-accused regarding purchasing of a mobile phone and a village bichar was convened to settle the matter in dispute. In the said bichar, the co-accused Sahidul Alom refused to pay an amount on the ground that he had not purchased any mobile from the husband of the petitioner and this led to an altercation with Sahidul Alom, who threatened the petitioner and her husband that he would take revenge for maligning his image in public. It is further submitted that the petitioner being a lady, is in custody Page No.# 3/5

since 08.06.2023 i.e. around one year ten months as of now.

6. It is further submitted that the second bail application is filed on new grounds that when the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2023, the arresting officer issued notice under Section 50 of Cr.P.C. without showing any ground of her arrest which is a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Since the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner at the

time of her arrest and before remanding her to police custody, the very arrest of the petitioner is illegal because the same is hit by the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

7. Per contra, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that commercial quantity of contraband items were recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. As the commercial quantity of contraband items are involved in the instant case as such, the embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act will come into play. Hence, the Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed in granting bail to the petitioner. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the petitioner.

8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the trial court record.

9. In a recent case, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, held that when a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused.

Page No.# 4/5

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, reported in 2023 SCC Online (SC) 1244, has held that the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception, if the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. Consequently the arrest, subsequent remand of the arrested person cannot be sustained.

11. This proposition of law has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 SCC Online (SC) 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA(P) Act or for that matter any other offence(s). The accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest and non supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge sheeted.

12. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed on the grounds of his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioner that the accused petitioner was informed about the grounds of his arrest in connection with Badarpur PS Case No. 148/2023. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Page No.# 5/5

13. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam.

The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner:

(a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam without prior written permission from him/her;

(b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the trial; and

(c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court.

14. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of this court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case.

15. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant