Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010190362025 2025:GAU-AS:12860 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2813/2025 FIROJ ALOM AND ANR SON OF MD. MANOWAR R/O MOIJING P.S. THOUBAL DIST. THOUBAL, MANIPUR 2: MD. MUJIBUR RAHMAN S/O MD. FAYAJUDDIN RESIDING OF MOIJING P.S. THOUBAL DIDST. THOUBAL MANIPUR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. A. MEDHI, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 17.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. A. Medhi, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Page No.# 2/5 Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Firoj Alom and (2) Md. Mujibur Rahman, who are detained behind the bars since 30.04.2025 in connection with Dillai P.S. Case No. 25/2025, under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 30.04.2025, one Minu Saikia, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Dillai Police Station, inter alia, alleging that during routine naka checking duty at National Highway No. 29 at 6th mile near Forest Beat Office under Lahorijan police post on 30.04.2025, one Renault Duster vehicle bearing Registration No. BR 01DA 6016 was intercepted and during search of the same vehicle 4.096 Kg of morphine was recovered from the said vehicle. 4. The learned counsel of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are seeking bail in this case on the grounds of violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as no notice under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 was served on the family/ friends/relatives/nominated persons of the accused persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the Trial Court had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioners mainly on the grounds that on perusal of the Case Diary, one W.T. Message was found, whereby the said message was sent to station house office Thoubal in Manipur requesting him to inform the family members of the arrestee. She submits that though the Trial Court held that there is a substantial compliance of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in this case, however, there is no material on record to show that in fact the grounds of arrest were communicated to the Page No.# 3/5 family members/friends/ nominated persons of the petitioners. 6. She further submits that in the arrest memo prepared by the arresting authority only the signatures of the accused petitioners have been taken and it does not indicate anything that the said arrest memo were communicated to the family members/friends or nominated persons of the petitioners. 7. She, therefore, submits that there is a violation of the statutory requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 as well as constitutional mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India in this case and on that ground, she submits that the petitioners may be allowed to go on bail. 8. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. the State of Haryana and Another” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” as well as the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of “National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlenmate@Leninmate”(order dated 21.08.2025 in Crl.A. No. 234/2025). “ 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS, Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. 10. However, she fairly submits that she could not find a notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 in the case record. 11. The Apex Court has observed in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. the State of Haryana and Another” (supra) that the the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest, in writing, is not only to the arrested persons, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Page No.# 4/5 Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. 12. In the instant case, apparently, there is nothing to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to the family members/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners. 13. Merely, sending a W.T. Message to the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station, where the family members of the petitioners are stated to reside in itself does not fulfil the requirement of “ communicating the grounds of arrest” to the family members/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners. 14. As such in this case, the prosecution side has failed to prove that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to the family members/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners and, therefore, on that ground they are entitled to get bail. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the above-mentioned petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with 2(two) suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, with following conditions:- i. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of Dillai P.S. Case No. 25/2025, under Sections 21(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioners 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 Page No.# 5/5 dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhaar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant