Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010099282025 2025:GAU-AS:13877 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1549/2025 MD. AMIR KHAN AND ANR S/O- ABDUL QUADIR. R/O- KWAKTA KHAMAN MOIRANG. P.S.- MOIRANG. DISTRICT- BISHNUPUR, MANIPUR. 2: SINGAMAYUM SAJAT S/O- MD. RAHMAN. R/O- YAIRIPOK BAMON LEIKAI. P.S- YARIPOK. DISTRICT- THOUBAL MANIPU VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP,ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : L BANIK, N NEOG,MS. S. KAUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 16.10.2025 Heard Ms. L. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Dillai P.S Case No. 02/2025 registered under Section 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The FIR dated 06.02.2025 reflects that on secret information, the police personnel of Dillai Police Station conducted a checking and intercepted a night super passenger bus coming from Manipur side towards Guwahati and on checking of the same, found a secret chamber built under the footstep of the bus and on suspicion that the said box might contain contrabands, the police personnel along with independent witnesses checked the same and recovered 100 numbers of plastic identical soap cases of different colours containing brown colour powdery substances suspected to be Heroin. On receipt of the same, the police person seized the night super bus along with contraband and apprehended the petitioners who were the driver and the accompanied person. Ms. L. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the police Page No.# 3/6 had furnished the petitioners with the Arrest Memo but the particulars written in the said Memorandum were all incorrect inasmuch as, the case number was also incorrectly written as well as the date of arrest of the petitioners was also wrongly reflected. As such, she submits that the said Arrest Memos were not pertaining to the instant case against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised another ground by stating inter alia that Section 47 and Section 48 of the BNSS were not followed in the instant case. She submits that although notice under Section 47, BNSS was furnished to the petitioners but the same does not contain necessary particulars as required under the law and further submits that no notice under Section 48 BNSS was furnished to the relative of the accused persons. On the said grounds, she prays for bail. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the mistake that cropped up in the Arrest Memo were typographical mistake and the same may not be the basis for any bail to be granted to the petitioners. He submits that by virtue of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, an accused person is required to be furnished with the grounds of such arrest and the same has been complied with in the instant case inasmuch as, in the Arrest Memo, the Grounds of Arrest are reflected and he also submits that the Grounds of Arrest to the relative is not mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. As such, he submits that there is no violation of law and no bail may be Page No.# 4/6 granted to the petitioners. He also submits that the accused persons were from the State of Manipur and the information to the relatives of the petitioners were given under Section 48 through W.T Message on 06.01.2025. To substantiate his argument, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor relied upon the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 to bring home the law point that Article 22 of the Constitution of India should be strictly followed and he submits that it is not stated that the same has to be in consonance with Section 47 of BNSS, 2023. Heard the counsels and gone through the records. It is noticed that the Arrest Memo in connection with the instant case is very carelessly prepared by the police personnel inasmuch as, the arrest were made on 05.01.2025 whereas, it is shown that the arrest of the petitioners were made on 06.02.2025 and the case number was also wrongly written there. However, the same may not be the ground of bail since the same was only carelessly made. However, as far as violation of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS is concerned this Court takes note of the same. Under Section 47 of the BNSS, it is required that every accused person should be communicated with full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds of such arrest and it is the mandate of Section 48 of the BNSS that every police officer or other person making the arrest shall forthwith give information regarding the arrest of the accused person to his Page No.# 5/6 relative, friends or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person. As far as notice under Section 47 is concerned which requires that Grounds of Arrest must be provided to the arrested person, it is seen in the instant case that Section 47 BNSS notice includes only the name of the petitioner, date of his arrest, the case number and the Sections under which he is arrested. It is a settled position of law as it has been held by the Apex Court that Reasons of Arrest and Grounds of Arrest are two separate things and that Grounds of Arrest should include all the necessary particulars of the offence. In the Arrest Memo in the instant case, the column was for reasons as well as grounds of arrest where it was written that the contraband substance has been recovered which is suspected to be Heroin. As such, in the instant case, Section 47 BNSS notice is not a notice as contemplated under Section 47 of the BNSS. Further, informing the relative by way of W.T. Message, which again does not include necessary information regarding the offence cannot be said to be enough compliance of Section 48 BNSS as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. In view of the same, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioners on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each with two (2) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong with the following conditions:- Page No.# 6/6 (1) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong as and when called for. (2) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any of the witnesses. (3) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong without the permission of the said Court. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant