Asmat Ali vs The State Of Assam

Court
Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010067522026

2026:GAU-AS:7501
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./953/2026
ASMAT ALI
S/O- MATLEB ALI.
R/O- VILL- NONKE GADHOWA, P.S.- MANGALDAI, PIN- 784182, DIST.-
DARRANG, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR ARINDAM BARUAH, MS LUBNA CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Date : 29.05.2026

Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-
applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing
the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for

Page No.# 2/15
granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Mangaldai P.S. Case No.
227/2025, under Section 21(b)/22(b)/22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending before
the Court of learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai.
3. The gist of the case is that an FIR was lodged by one S.I. Pankaj Das of
Mangaldai Police Station on 10-12-2025 at 12:30 PM after receiving an input from
reliable sources that the accused-applicant, Asmat Ali, has been dealing with drugs
and he was moving to Gadhowa Chapari near Ghatpar.
4. On receipt of such information, the same was informed to the senior police
officials and as per the directions of the Officer-in-Charge, Mangaldai Police Station,
the informant proceeded to conduct search and seizure and to take necessary steps.
Accordingly, at 12:55 PM, the team led by the informant reached Gadhowa Chapari
and located the accused-applicant in a Pulsar bike having registration number AS-
07E-0381. The O.C., Mangaldai Police Station and Deputy S.P. (HQ) also arrived at
the location, and after intercepting the accused-applicant, his body was searched in
presence of witnesses. On search, suspected heroin weighing about 14.6 grams
along with the containers, in 10 numbers of plastic containers, were recovered.
Along with the aforesaid alleged heroin, suspected NDPS in Triprolidine
Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate Syrup weighing 16604.4 grams contained in
12 bottles were recovered. 30 strips, each containing 10 numbers of tablets, of
suspected NDPS, Nitrozepam tablets, weighing 88.5 grams were also recovered.
After seizure of the aforesaid contraband materials as per the provisions of law, the
accused applicant was apprehended.
5. In view of the aforesaid FIR, Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 227/2025 under Section
21(b), 22(b), 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 was registered on 10-12-2025. After his
arrest and in completion of the investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet in
the instant case, and presently the case is pending in the court of the learned

Page No.# 3/15
Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai.
6. TCR (Trial Court Record) in the instant case was called for, but the same is yet
to be received. However, since sufficient required documents have already been
annexed in the instant bail application, with the agreement of the counsel
appearing for the respective parties, the case has been taken up for disposal at this
stage only.
7. Mr. A. Boruah, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant, has
mainly submitted that while arresting the accused-applicant, the mandates of
Section 36 of BNSS, 2023 have not been complied with by the arresting authority,
and in view of the aforesaid, the arrest of the accused-applicant is illegal, and
therefore, on that ground only, the instant bail application should be allowed by
granting bail to the accused applicant.
8. The learned counsel submits that though notice under Section 48 of the BNSS
has been issued to a family member of the accused applicant, no attestation of any
witness has been taken in the arrest-memo while arresting the accused-applicant.
He submits that neither any respectable member of the locality wherein the
accused applicant was arrested, nor any family member of the accused-applicant's
signature/attestation was obtained while arresting the accused-applicant.
Therefore, since Section 36 and Section 48 of the BNSS are two independent
provisions, non-compliance of any of those sections shall make the arrest illegal. He
submits that in the instant case, since the provisions of Section 36 have not been
complied with, therefore, the fundamental right of the accused applicant
guaranteed under Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution have been violated,
curtailing the rights of the accused-applicant in the instant case. Therefore, he
submits that the accused-applicant should be allowed to go on bail for the reason of
non-compliance of the mandate of Section 36 of BNSS.

Page No.# 4/15
9. Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. P.P., on the other hand, submits that the
instant case relates to recovery of huge number of narcotic contraband substances,
and since the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, whereby a family member of the
accused-applicant has already been issued, the non-compliance of Section 36 of
BNSS shall not vitiate the whole arrest process. He submits that Section 36(c) of
BNSS specifically provides that in the event of information of the arrest of an
accused person is given to any family member or relative or friend of an accused
person, the attestation of a witness is not required as the same shall not prejudice
in any way the rights of the accused applicant. He submits that since the mandates
of Section 48 have been complied with, the procedural lapse of obtaining the
attestation of a witness in the arrest-memo under Section 36 of BNSS shall not
make the whole arrest illegal. In this connection, the learned Addl. P.P. has referred
to the case of Jabbar Hussain Vs. The State of Assam (Bail Appln. No.
887/2026) decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the learned
Coordinate Bench held that if a notice under Section 48 of BNSS is duly served upon
a family member of the arrestee, the requirements of Section 36 of BNSS stands
complied with and therefore, absence of the signature of witnesses in arrest-memo
does not vitiate the arrest nor renders it illegal. The learned Addl. P.P. further
submits that Section 37 of NDPS Act is squarely applicable in the instant case, and
therefore, without taking into account the mandates of Section 37 of NDPS Act, the
accused applicant should not be granted bail at this stage.
10. This court has heard the submissions made by the respective counsel in the
instant case.
11. The issue involved in the instant case has already been decided by this court,
vide its order dated 02.12.2025, passed in the case of Abu Shama and Anr., Vs. The
State of Assam (Bail Appln. No. 3636/2025) and judgment and order passed in
Bail Application No. 1199 of 2026 (Juber Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam) ,

Page No.# 5/15
decided on 25.05.2026 . The following paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment in
Juber Ahmed (supra) being relevant are quoted herein below: -
“ 12. In consideration of the aforesaid issue, it may be relevant herein to refer to the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of D.K. Basu Vs.
State of West Bengal (With Ashok K Johri Vs. State of UP) , reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 ,
wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-35 has directed as follows: -
“ 35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in
all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive
measures:
(1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the
arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with
their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle
interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo
of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one
witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable
person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned
by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
(3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police
station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend
or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being
informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at
the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself
such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the
police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or
town through the Legal Aid Organization in the District and the police station of the
area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of
his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of

Page No.# 6/15
the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who
has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials
in whose custody the arrestee is.
(7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his
arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be
recorded at that time. The "Inspection Memo" must be signed both by the arrestee
and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every
48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved
doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory
concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and
districts as well.
(9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should
be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record.
(10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation,
though not throughout the interrogation.
(11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State
headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the
arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of
effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a
conspicuous notice board.”

13. From the above, it is clear that Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that while arresting a
person, at the time of his arrest, an Arrest Memo is required to be prepared. Sub-paragraph (2)
of Paragraph 35 provides that the Arrest Memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who
may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from
where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the
time and date of arrest. Sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 35 provides that a person who has
been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation
centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to
him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been
arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo

Page No.# 7/15
of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. It is also seen that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has not provided for any exception in Sub-paragraph (2) about the requirement
of attestation by at least one witness, who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee
or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made.

14. It may be worthwhile to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in
paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of the aforesaid judgment, which are extracted herein below:-
“ 37. The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the
Constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the
other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier.

38. These requirements are in addition to the constitutional and statutory safeguards and
do not detract from various other directions given by the courts from time to time in
connection with the safeguarding of the rights and dignity of the arrestee.

39. The requirements mentioned above shall be forwarded to the Director General of
Police and the Home Secretary of every State/Union Territory and it shall be their
obligation to circulate the same to every police station under their charge and get the
same notified at every police station at a conspicuous place. It would also be useful and
serve larger interest to broadcast the requirements on All India Radio besides being
shown on the National Network of Doordarshan any by publishing and distributing
pamphlets in the local language containing these requirements for information of the
general public. Creating awareness about the rights of the arrestee would in our opinion
be a step in the right direction to combat the evil of custodial crime and bring in
transparency and accountability. It is hoped that these requirements would help to curb, if
not totally eliminate, the use of questionable methods during interrogation and
investigation leading to custodial commission of crimes.”

15. In view of the aforesaid directions in the case of D.K. Basu (supra) , certain
amendments have been carried out in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by way of
inclusion of Section 41A, Section 41B, Section 41C and Section 41D, vide the Act 5 of 2009,
with effect from 01.11.2010.

Page No.# 8/15
16. Section 41B of the Cr.P.C., laid down the procedure of arrest and duty of the officer
making the arrest. After coming into effect of the BNSS, 2023, Section 41B has been retained in
the BNSS, 2023 as Section 36.
17. Section 36 of the BNSS being relevant in the instant case is extracted herein below: -
“ 36. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest.— Every police officer
while making an arrest shall-
(a) Bear and accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate
easy identification;
(b) Prepare a Memorandum of Arrest which shall be-
(i) Attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the arrested
person or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made;
(ii) Counter signed by the person arrested; and
(c) Informed the person arrested, unless the Memorandum is attested by a member of
his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend or any other person named
by him to be informed of his arrest.”
18. What is discernible from the aforesaid Section 36 is that every police officer while
making an arrest mandatorily has to bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his
name, so that, he can be identified easily. It is also mandated that while making the arrest, the
police officer shall have to prepare the Arrest Memo which shall be attested by at least one
witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the
locality wherein the arrest is made. It is also provided that the Arrest Memo is mandatorily
required to be countersigned by the person arrested. Therefore, it is apparently very clear that
the Arrest Memo has to be attested by at least one witness, either a family member or a
respectable person of the locality wherein the person is arrested. In view of the directions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as discussed above and due to the provisions under Section 36 of
BNSS, 2023, the compliance of the same is unavoidable for the police authority while making
the arrest.
19. It is also seen that in terms of the Section 36(c) of the BNSS, 2023, the arrested person

Page No.# 9/15
shall be informed that he has the right to have a relative or a friend or any other person named
by him to be informed of his arrest, in the event, the Arrest Memo is not attested by a member of
his family. Therefore, it is seen that though a respectable member of the locality wherein the
arrest is made, has signed the Arrest Memo, an additional duty is casted upon the police
authority to inform the person arrested about his right to be informed about his arrest to a
relative or a friend or any other person named by him. So, it is discernible from the aforesaid
provisions that if the Arrest Memo is signed by any member of the family or a friend or a person
named by the arrested person, the requirement of informing the person arrested that he has the
right to have a relative or a friend or any other person named by him to inform of his arrest is
not mandatory, since by being an attested witness in the Arrest Memo, his family member is
already informed about his arrest. Therefore, an attestation in the Arrest Memo by a witness is
must and there is no exception to that has been provided in Section 36 of BNSS, 2023.
20. At this point of time, it will be relevant to mention Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 (Section
50A of the Cr.P.C.). The provisions being relevant for consideration in the instant case, the
same are extracted herein below: -
“ 48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or
friend .- (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita
shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested
person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be
disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such
information and also to the designated police officer in the district.
(2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1)
as soon as he is brought to the police station.
(3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be
made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government
may, by rules, provide.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced,
to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been
complied with in respect of such arrested person.”

21. From the above, it is clear that Section 48 mandates that when an arrest is made under

Page No.# 10/15
the BNSS, the police officer shall forthwith give such information to any of his relative or
friends or any other such person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for
the purpose of giving such information. In addition to such information to any member of the
family or friends, the designated police officer in the district is also to be informed. It also
mandates that the police officer shall inform the arrested person of his arrest under Sub-Section
(1) as soon as he is brought to the police station.
22. It is seen that Section 50A of the Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 48 of the BNSS, was
inserted in the Cr.P.C., vide the Act 25 of 2005, with effect from 23.06.2006. Therefore, it is
clear that Section 50A of the Cr.P.C. was already in existence when Section 41B of Cr.P.C
(corresponding to Section 47 of BNSS, 2023) was inserted with effect from 01.11.2010.
Therefore, it cannot be denied that, while inserting Section 41B into the Cr.P.C., the Legislature
was aware of the existence of Section 50A therein and Section 41B was inserted with such
knowledge. So, it can be said that though the mandate under Section 50A was already there, the
mandate under Section 41B has been included in the Cr.P.C. independently. This shows that
both the Sections 41B and 50A are two independent provisions which require to be complied
with independently. After coming into effect of the BNSS, 2023, accordingly, Section 36 and
Section 48 of BNSS are required to be complied with by the police authority while arresting an
accused person.
23. Now, another important provision which requires consideration is Section 62 of the
BNSS, 2023, which is being relevant in the instant case, is extracted herein below: -
“ 62. Arrest to be made strictly accordingly to Sanhita- no arrest shall be made except in
accordance with the provisions of this Sanhita or any other law for a time being in force
providing for arrest”.
24. Section 62 of the BNSS makes it clear that any arrest made under the BNSS has to be
made in strict compliance of the provisions of the BNSS.
25. Therefore, a combined reading of the aforesaid Sections of 36, 48 & 62 makes it clear
that while arresting an accused person, the provisions of Section 36 as well as Section 48 have
to be independently complied with. There is no exception which has been curved out from
Section 36, providing that in the event of compliance of Section 48, the requirement of
attestation of at least one witness, who is a family member of the arrested person or a

Page No.# 11/15
respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made is exempted. Therefore, statutory
provisions of Section 36 of BNSS, 2023 cannot be said to be negated by compliance of
provisions of Section 48 of BNSS, 2023.
26. There is another aspect that needs to be considered is that in the Arrest Memo so
prepared by the police authority while arresting an accused person, the attestation has to be
made by a member of the family of the person arrested. Meaning thereby, only a member of the
family can be a witness in the Arrest Memo. But, under Section 36(c), the compliance is
required for the police authority to inform the person arrested if the Arrest Memo is not signed
by any family member that he has a right to have a relative or friend or any other person to be
informed of his arrest. So purposes are distinct and different.
27. Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 also provides for the obligation under Section 48 to
inform about the arrest to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be
disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information.
Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the mandate of Section 36 is very clear that the
Arrest Memo has to be signed by either any of the family member or a respectable member of
the locality wherein the arrest is made. Whereas, under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, the
obligation of the police authority is to give the information forthwith to any of his relatives,
friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the
purpose of giving such information and therefore, the obligation is not limited to a member of
the family rather, the same has been widen up by inclusion of any such relatives, friends or such
other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person.
28. As discussed above, Section 62 of the BNSS provides that no arrest shall be made except
in accordance with the provisions of the Sanhita or any other law for the time being in force
providing for arrest. Therefore, any arrest that has to be made is mandatorily has to comply
with the provisions and procedure of arrest while making such arrest. Non compliance of such
provisions will be in violation of the mandatory provisions which will in turn make such arrest
illegal. Once an arrest becomes illegal, the arrested person shall have an unfettered right to be
set at liberty, i.e., to be released on bail.
29. It is seen from the above discussion that language used is Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 is
unambiguous. Therefore, it may not be correct on the part of the court to provide a different

Page No.# 12/15
interpretation except what could be gathered from a plain and simple reading of the provision.
In this connection, the case of Nasiruddin V Sita Ram Agarwal , reported in (2003)2 SCC 577
can be referred to. Paragraph 37 being relevant is extracted herein below:
“ The Court’s jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is
ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it
cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or
intention when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or
subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot rewrite
or recast legislation. It is also necessary to determine that there exists a presumption
that the legislature has not used any superfluous words. It is well settled that the real
intention of the legislation must be gathered from the language used. It may be true that
use of the expression “shall or may” is not decisive for arriving at a finding as to
whether the statute is directory or mandatory. But the intention of the legislature must
be found out from the scheme of the Act. It is also equally well settled that when
negative words are used the courts will presume that the intention of the legislature was
that the provisions are mandatory in character.”
30. Similarly, in the case of Satheedevi Vs. Prasanna and Anothe r, reported in (2010) 6
SCR 657 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: -
“ 10. Before proceeding further, we may notice two well recognized rules of
interpretation of statutes. The first and primary rule of construction is that the intention
of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words
used are capable of one construction, only then it would not be open to the courts to
adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such hypothetical
construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words
used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain
grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions
that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise -
Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan 1958 SCR 360 . The other important rule of
interpretation is that the Court cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation because
it has no power to do so. The Court cannot add words to a statute or read words which
are not therein. Even if there is a defect or an omission in the statute, the Court cannot

Page No.# 13/15
correct the defect or supply the omission. Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal
1992 Supp (1) SCC 323, Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna Municipal Corporation (1966)
3 SCR 366. ”
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the
mandates of Section 36, BNSS, 2023 cannot be exempted by complying with the mandates of
Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, if there is any violation while preparing the Arrest
Memo by not obtaining the attestation of either of a family member or a respectable person of
the locality wherein the arrest is made, the arrest becomes in violation of Section 36, BNSS,
2023 and therefore, the same shall be treated as an illegal arrest.”

12. From the aforesaid, this Court has already decided the issue that non-
compliance of Section 36 of the BNSS shall make an arrest illegal though there is
compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS. It seems, while considering the case of
Jabbar Hussain (supra) , the case of Abu Shama and Another (supra) decided on
02.12.2025 was not placed before the Coordinate Bench of this court.
13. As far as the submission of the learned Addl. P.P., regarding the mandates of
Section 37 of the NDPS are concerned, though Section 37 provides for certain
conditions to be fulfilled before granting bail of an accused person in case of seizure
of commercial quantity, the same will be applicable when the arrest is itself not
illegal. However, if any arrest is made in violation of mandatory provisions as laid
down in the BNSS, 2023, then the same goes to the root of the matter and the initial
arrest itself becomes illegal.
14. In the instant case in hand, it is seen that the Arrest-Memo does not contain
any attestation from any of the family member or any respectable member of the
locality wherein the arrest was made.
15. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is of the considered view that the
rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1987, shall not be applicable in the case,
wherein, the arrest itself is rendered illegal due to violation of Section 36 of the

Page No.# 14/15
BNSS, 2023. It is also not in dispute that in a case under NDPS Act also, in terms of
Section 51 of the NDPS Act, 1985, the provisions of the provisions of BNSS, 2023
(erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) shall be applicable to any arrest
made under the NDPS Act, 1985.
16. The fundamental rights are paramount under the Constitution of India. Article
21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and
cherished right under the Constitution.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that
the mandates of Section 36, BNSS, 2023 cannot be waived off by complying with the
mandates of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, if there is any violation while
preparing the Arrest Memo by not obtaining the attestation of either of a family
member or a respectable person of the locality wherein the arrest is made, the
arrest becomes in violation of Section 36, BNSS, 2023 and therefore, the same shall
be treated as an illegal arrest.
18. Coming back to the facts of the instant case in hand, it is seen that the Arrest
Memo does not contain any attestation from any of the family member or any
respectable member of the locality wherein the arrest was made. This clearly
violates the mandates of Section 36 read with Section 62 of the BNSS, 2023.
19. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that non compliance of
Section 36, BNSS, 2023 in the instant case, has made the arrest of the accused-
applicant, an illegal arrest, which provides the accused-applicant the right to be
released on bail.
20. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of D.K. Basu (supra) as well as the procedural mandates as laid down under
Section 36 and Section 62 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court is of the view that there is

Page No.# 15/15
violation of mandates of Section 36 read with Section 62 of the BNSS, 2023 in the
instant case, whereby, the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused-applicant
under Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, have been illegally curtailed.
21. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, this Court
directs the accused-applicant to be released forthwith on bail on furnishing a bail
bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of like amount to
the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Darrang, Mangaldai, subject to the
following conditions: -
(i) that the accused-applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when
required;
(ii) that the accused-applicant 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;
(iii) that the accused-applicant shall provide his contact details including
photocopy of Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile
number, and other contact details to the learned Special Judge, Darrang,
Mangaldai;
(iv) that the accused-applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail.
22. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Bail Application stands disposed of as
allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant