Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010113392025 2025:GAU-AS:11516 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1757/2025 NUR ISLAM SON OF MANIK JAMADAR R/O VILL- GOLIBANDHA, P.S.SARTHEBARI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, IMDADUL ISLAM,M RAHMAN,MR A BASUMATARY,MR. M M ZAMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Nur Islam, has prayed for bail and is stated to have been arrested on 18.04.2025 in connection with North Guwahati P.S Case No. 39/2025 [GR-377(K)/2025] registered under Section 22(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The sole ground of challenge in this bail petition as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the notice under Section 48 BNSS has not been served upon the family members/friends of the arrested accused. 4. In order to verify the said allegations, the scanned copy of the case diary called for, which is received and placed before this Court. 5. The W.T. Message dated 19.04.2025 from OC North Guwahati P.S to the OC Sarthebari P.S is available in the case diary which contains the grounds of arrest. 6. The another W.T. Message dated 12.06.2025 is seen in the case diary in reply to the earlier W.T. Message stating that the family Page No.# 3/4 members/guardian of the accused Nur Islam has been informed accordingly. 7. The said W.T. Message also states that the same has been received by one N. Islam at 1341/12. However, there is no document available in the case diary indicating acknowledgment of receipt of such notice/W.T. Message by any family members/friends of the accused. 8. The arrest memo is available in the case diary but the same also does not contain the signature of any witness and in any case, the arrest memo does not serve the purpose of Section 48 BNSS. 9. Therefore, on a perusal of the case diary, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the notice under Section 48 BNSS has been properly served upon the family members/friends of the accused. Consequently, having regard to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the arrest stands vitiated. Consequently, the prayer for bail is allowed. 10. Accordingly, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with two sureties of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon with following conditions: (i) That the petitioner 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 Page No.# 4/4 such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; 11. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant