Bail Appln./852/2026 of KUMUD BORO Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 21 April 2026

ORDER

22.04.2026 Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Kumud Boro, who has been in custody since 07.08.2024, in connection with Special NDPS Case No.15/2024 arising out of Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 registered under Sections 20(b)(ii)C of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The petitioner was initially arrested in connection with Tamulpur P.S. Case No. 178/2024 under the NDPS Act and was thereafter shown arrested in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 15/2024 arising out of Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continued detention of the petitioner in connection with Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 suffers from legal infirmities, inasmuch as the petitioner was never informed of the grounds of his arrest and detention in connection with the said case.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that the petitioner was shown arrested in connection with Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 on the strength of a production warrant issued by a competent court and, therefore, there is no illegality in the arrest of the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled position of law that when a person is not informed of the grounds of arrest in connection with a case pursuant to a production warrant, and is subsequently shown arrested in another case, such detention, in the absence of communication of reasons, becomes unconstitutional. Drawing attention to the order dated 18.08.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 2003/2025, it is submitted that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is equally applicable in such circumstances. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court failed to record the grounds of detention and remand in writing and also failed to communicate the same to the petitioner, thereby violating his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned APP, however, submits that the petitioner is involved in at least two cases under the NDPS Act and that releasing him on bail may not serve the ends of justice, as there exists a likelihood of his indulging in similar activities.

8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the order of the learned Special Judge, Baksa, allowing the petitioner to be shown arrested and remanding him to custody does not disclose any reasons for such arrest or remand. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was informed of the grounds of his arrest. Accordingly, the continued detention of the petitioner after being shown to be arrested in the second case is found to be in violation of the constitutional mandates. However, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner is involved in more than one case under the NDPS Act, this Court is of the opinion that stringent conditions are required to be imposed while granting bail.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely Kumud Boro, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be a Government servant and at least one shall possess immovable property of equivalent value within the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Baksa, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer of said Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 as and when he is required for necessary investigation;

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of Goreswar Police Station without obtaining prior written permission from the concerned Investigation Officer of the case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence of the case;

(iv) The petitioner 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 or to any Police Officer; and

(v) . The petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities in future.

10. In case of any violation of the aforesaid terms and conditions by the petitioner, the bail granted to him in the aforesaid Goreswar P.S. Case No. 32/2024 shall stand liable to be revoked.

11. Accordingly, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant