In a recent judgment, the Gauhati High Court underscored the critical importance of informing arrested individuals of the grounds for their arrest, granting bail to two individuals accused of drug trafficking due to a procedural lapse. The case, involving Jasir Uddin Barbhuiya and Piklu Das, highlighted the sanctity of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and its implications for arrests under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The petitioners were apprehended following the discovery of a significant quantity of suspected Codeine Phosphate Syrup in a vehicle they were occupying. Charged under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, which pertains to commercial quantities of contraband, they argued that they were merely performing their duties as a driver and handyman, respectively, and were unaware of the illicit cargo.
However, the crux of their appeal centered on the alleged illegality of their arrest. Their legal counsel argued that the arrest memos provided to them did not contain the grounds for their arrest, a mandatory requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This fundamental right, they asserted, ensures that individuals are not arbitrarily detained and are afforded the opportunity to exercise their legal rights effectively.
The State, while opposing the bail application due to the commercial quantity of contraband involved, conceded that the arrest memos did indeed lack the grounds for arrest. This admission proved pivotal in the court's decision.
The Gauhati High Court, referencing recent Supreme Court judgments, particularly Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another, reiterated the sacrosanct nature of the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest. The court emphasized that the failure to provide this information, in writing, renders the arrest illegal.
In its judgment, the court highlighted that when a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to immediately order the release of the accused. This principle applies even in cases where statutory restrictions on bail, such as those under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, are in place.
Consequently, the court granted bail to Jasir Uddin Barbhuiya and Piklu Das, subject to specific conditions, including the furnishing of bail bonds, restrictions on travel, and cooperation with the trial.
This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's commitment to upholding fundamental rights, even in cases involving serious offenses. It underscores the principle that procedural lapses that violate constitutional safeguards cannot be overlooked, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
Comments
Post a Comment