Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010145372025 2025:GAU-AS:16050 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2166/2025 GOUJALAL SINGSON AND ANR S/O- HAOTINKIP SINGSON. R/O- VILL.- LHANGJOL, P.S. AND DIST.- CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR, PIN-795128 2: THANGMINLUN LHUNGDIM S/O- SHOLIT LHUNGDIM R/O- VILL.- LALMAI P.S.- SANGGAIKOI DIST.- CHURACHANDPUR MANIPUR PIN-795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 25.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel assisted by Ms. M. Deka, Page No.# 2/16 learned counsel for the NCB. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Gaujalal Singson and Thangminlun Lhungdim, praying for bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 07/2024, under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The petitioners were arrested on 24-07-2024 and presently in judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the case was charge sheeted, followed by framing of charges and commencement of trial in NDPS Case No. 3/2025, pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his primary contentions are that the accused and his relative have not been properly noticed under section 47/48 BNSS as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. He has drawn the attention of the court to the annexed copies of the said documents. It is also submitted that there is also no proper compliance with section 36 of the BNSS as the arrest memo does not contain the signatures of witnesses. The learned counsel submits that the memorandum of arrest purportedly given to his relative also does not bear the signature of the said relative. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel, NCB submits that the prosecution has filed a detailed objection, contending that there has been due compliance with the notices required to be given at the time of arrest and that there is no violation of any Constitutional provision. It is Page No.# 3/16 also contended in the bail objection that there are significant materials linking the accused persons to the alleged offences of trafficking of a large quantity of psychotropic substances from Manipur. 6. The learned Standing counsel, NCB in supporting the bail objection refers to the relevant portions of the scanned TCR received from the learned court below and contends that the memorandum of arrest sufficiently mentions the grounds and there is requisite compliance with the statutory provisions as well as the constitutional mandate. The learned prosecution also refers to a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 1635 of 2025 in which this Court after referring to the notice under Section 47 BNSS and the memo of arrest came to the conclusion that there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused. The learned prosecution also refers to recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2025 0 INSC 1288 and draws attention to paras 56, 57 and 58 thereof. 7. I have perused the relevant materials including the scanned TCR and considered the rival submissions. 8. Before proceeding further, the notice under Section 47 of BNSS given to the accused/ Gaujalal Singson may be reproduced below – “Shri/Smt : Goujalal Singson (DOB 25.02.1994). S/o, D/o, W/o : Haotinkap Singson, Village- : D Lhangjol village, Police Station/Sub-Division – Churachandpur, District : Churachandpur, State : Manipur – 795128. Page No.# 4/16 Case No. NCB Guwahati Crime No. 07/2024 U/S : 08(c)/22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. You are hereby informed that you are arrested in connection with the above reference case and the case is non-bailable. So, you are forwarded to the Court. You may submit petition before the Hon’ble Court for your bail. Signature of Arrestee Signature of I.O.” 9. Similarly, the notice under Section 47 BNSS to the accused/ Thangminlun Lhungdim may be reproduced herein below- “Shri/Smt : ThangminlunLhungdim S/o, D/o, W/o : SholetLhungdim, Village- : Lamlai village, Police Station/Sub-Division – Sangaikot, District : Churachandpur, State : Manipur – 795128. Case No. NCB Guwahati Crime No. 07/2024 U/S : 08(c)/22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985. You are hereby informed that you are arrested in connection with the above reference case and the case is non-bailable. So, you are forwarded to the Court. You may submit petition before the Hon’ble Court for your bail. Signature of Arrestee Signature of I.O.” 10. The intimation dated 24.07.2024 was given to Mrs. Lamjaneng Singson, wife of Gaujalal Singson and the same may be reproduced below- Page No.# 5/16 “To Mrs. Lamjaneng Singson W/o – Goujalal Singson, R/o D Lhangjol village, Churachandpur Sub-Division, Churachandpur, Manipur – 795128 Sub : Intimation of arrest- regarding This is to inform you that on 23.07.2024, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Guwahati Zonal Unit had seized Methamphetamine tablets 06.790 kg from Bolero Car Bearing Registration no. A. 03M6467 at SMT workshop BSF Sector Hq Silchar, Assam. A case in this regard has been registered u/s 8 (c) to be read with 22(c) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 vide NCB crime no. 07/2024 of this Zonal Unit. Further your husband namely Goujalal Singson has been arrested on 24.07.2024 by the Investigating Officer, NCB Guwahati, in connection with this case. Rohit Kumar Jaiman Sub-Inspector NCB, Guwahati.” 11. Similarly, the intimation dated 24.07.2024 was given to Mrs. Nemjaneng Lhungdim, wife of Thangminlun Lhungdim and the same may be reproduced below- “To Mrs. Nemjaneng Lhungdim W/o – Thangminlun Lhungdim, R/o Lamlai village, P.S. & Sub-Divison – Sangaikot, Distt - Churachandpur, Manipur – 795128 Page No.# 6/16 Sub : Intimation of arrest- regarding This is to inform you that on 23.07.2024, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Guwahati Zonal Unit had seized Methamphetamine tablets 06.790 kg from Bolero Car Bearing Registration no. A. 03M6467 at SMT workshop BSF Sector Hq Silchar, Assam. A case in this regard has been registered u/s 8 (c) to be read with 22(c) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 vide NCB crime no. 07/2024 of this Zonal Unit. Further your husband namely Thangminlun Lhungdim has been arrested on 24.07.2024 by the Investigating Officer, NCB Guwahati, in connection with this case. Rohit Kumar Jaiman Sub-Inspector NCB, Guwahati.” 12. However, I find that in both these notices, purportedly notices under section 48 BNSS, no signature or acknowledgement of the recipient is found. 13. I have perused the memorandum of arrest dated 24-07-2024 with regard to Gaujalal Singson and the same be reproduced herein below- “Date : 24.07.2024 MEMORANDUM OF ARREST Ref. No:07/NCB/GZU/Meth/07/2024 In consequence of/ connection with the recovery and seizure of Methamphetamine tablets 06.790 Kg from Mahindra Bolero car bearing registration no. AS 03M 66467under section: 42 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 23.07.2024 at 2340hrsat the workshop of Sector Hq BSF Silchar, Assam, I do hereby Page No.# 7/16 arrest Goujalal Singson S/o Haotinkap Singson R/o D Lhangjol village, Churachandpur Sub-Division, Churachandpur, Manipur 795128under Section 42 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 24.07.2024 at 1800hrs at the workshop of Sector Hq BSF Silchar, Assam on reasonable belief/prima facie proof that the said seized goods/articles/documents are liable to confiscation under Section; 60 & 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) and the aforesaid arrestee Goujalal Singson is liable to proceedings under Section: 8 (C) to be read with 22 (c) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) for contravention of the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) which have already been duly explained to him. The aforesaid arrested person is being forwarded to the competent authority within twenty four hours hence for his/her remand to judicial/jail custody. Given under my hand and SEAL: Signature with date. Name & Designation: Rohit Kumar Jajman Seal Sub-Inspector NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit To Goujalal Singson (DOB-25.02.1994) S/o Haotinkap Singson R/o D Lhangjol village, Churachandpur Sub-Division, Churachandpur, Manipur – 795128” 14. Similarly, the memorandum of arrest of Thangminlun Lhungdim and Page No.# 8/16 the same may also be reproduced herein below- “Date : 24.07.2024 MEMORANDUM OF ARREST Ref. No:07/NCB/GZU/Meth/07/2024 In consequence of/ connection with the recovery and seizure of Methamphetamine tablets 06.790 Kgfrom Mahindra Bolero car bearing registration no. AS 03M 66467under section: 42 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 23.07.2024 at 2340hrsat the workshop of Sector Hq BSF Silchar, Assam, I do hereby arrest Thangminlun Lhungdim S/o SholetLhungdim, R/o Lamlai village, Sangaikot Sub-Division, P.S. – Sangaikot, Distt. - Churachandpur, Manipur 795128 under Section 42 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) on 24.07.2024 at 1800hrs at the workshop of Sector Hq BSF Silchar, Assam on reasonable belief/prima facie proof that the said seized goods/articles/documents are liable to confiscation under Section; 60 & 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) and the aforesaid arrestee Thangminlun Lhungdim is liable to proceedings under Section: 8 (C) to be read with 22 (c) & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) for contravention of the provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (as amended) which have already been duly explained to him. The aforesaid arrested person is being forwarded to the competent authority within twenty four hours hence for his/her remand to judicial/jail custody. Page No.# 9/16 Given under my hand and SEAL: Signature with date. Name & Designation: Rohit Kumar Jajman Seal Sub-Inspector NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit To Thangminlun Lhungdim S/o SholetLhungdim R/o Lamlai village, Sangaikot sub-division, P.S. – Sangaikot, Distt - Churachandpur, Manipur.” 15. In Mihir Rajesh Shah(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated as follows in Para 56-57-58 which are reproduced herein below- “56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv)In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free. Page No.# 10/16 57. After having come to the above conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the provision of law under Section 50 of CrPC 1973 (Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not provide for a specific mode of or time frame for communication of the grounds of arrest to the person arrested. This Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra), held that the grounds of arrest be conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all offences at the earliest, which means it need not be given at the time of arrest but within a reasonable time thereafter, for offences under all the statutes, which period would be as has been laid down above in this order. 58. We are cognizant that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Holding as above, in our view, would ensure implementation of the constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner. Such clarity on obligation would avoid uncertainty in the administration of criminal justice. The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth.” 16. On the memorandum of arrest of Gaujalal Singson, I find the signatures of the sub-inspector NCB and also a signature purportedly of the accused arrestee. However, no signatures of any witnesses are found. 17. Similarly, in the memorandum of arrest with regard to Thangminlun Lhungdim also, no other signatures are found apart from the signature of the sub-inspector NCB and the purported signature of the arrestee. 18. On a bare reading of the notice under Section 47 BNSS, which is furnished to both the accused persons, the same is clearly bereft of the grounds of arrest. Upon perusing the memorandum of arrest, I find that Page No.# 11/16 it has been mentioned therein about recovery of psychotropic substance from the Bolero vehicle and about the arrest of the accused under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and it is stated that the arrest is on reasonable belief/prima facie proof that the seized materials are liable to be confiscated under section 60/61 of the NDPS Act and the arrestee liable to proceedings under section 8/6/22(C)/29 NDPS Act. 19. In the intimation to the relatives of the arrested persons, which is purportedly a notice under section 48 BNSS, even though the provision is not mentioned – it is stated that on 23-07-2024, methadone tablets 0.67 kg were seized from Bolero vehicle, whereupon a case has been registered and the concerned accused arrested. 20. Now, the question before this Court is whether the aforesaid narration in the memorandum of arrest and intimation to relatives would constitute sufficient compliance with the requirement under Section 47/48 BNSS, in terms of the mandate under Article 22(1) Constitution of India and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934. 21. The principles that have emanated from these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are that grounds of arrest in reasonable detail and specific to the person arrested have to be furnished to the arrestee as well as to his nominated relative or other person so as to comply with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It has been emphasized that grounds of arrest have to be in reasonable detail and specific to the accused person. Page No.# 12/16 22. The underlying philosophy behind these principles is that when the liberty of the accused has been curtailed, he and his close relative or nominated person have to be noticed about the grounds on which such liberty is being curtailed. Further, such information regarding the grounds are also necessary so as to enable the accused and his family member or nominated person to prepare for his defense and bail etc. 23. Needless to say that, the requirements of personal liberty vis-à-vis an arrested person accused of an offence does not exist in a vacuum. It also has to be balanced with the interest of proper investigation, control of crime and protecting the societal interest of reducing crime in society. Nevertheless, the laws which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and which holds the field – that the notices under section 47/48 BNSS have to be properly complied with in terms of the directions given in those judgments, so as to fulfill the mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid principles, now the question before the court in the instant case is whether the narration in the memorandum of arrest can be taken as sufficient compliance with the requirement of providing the grounds of arrest in terms of section 47/48 BNSS. In this regard, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 1518/2025 decided on 25.03.2025 in Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh. In the said decision also, Hon’ble Supreme Court had to consider as to whether the contents of the memorandum of arrest constituted sufficient compliance with the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest under section 47 Page No.# 13/16 BNSS. In this regard, the relevant portions of the judgment may be extracted here and below – “Upon perusing annexure P-3, we can see that what has been provided to the appellant is only an arrest memo in the prescribed format, which is meant to be given to the appellant by way of an intimation. It has been filled up with the name of the appellant along with the place of arrest. Additionally, it has been written that he has been arrested based upon the statement of the co-accused. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him. This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment, particularly, in light of the judgment rendered by this Court reported as Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) - (2024) 8 SCC 254. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment stands set aside and the arrest of the appellant followed by the consequential remand order are also set aside.” 25. Now again coming back to the instant case, I find that – (i) the notices under section 47 BNSS in regard to both the accused persons are bereft of the grounds of arrest. (ii) the memorandum of arrest with regard to both the accused persons do not reveal the signatures of any persons other than the arrestee and the police official. (iii) the notices given to the relatives of the arrested accused persons does not indicate any endorsement or acknowledgment. (iv) the narration in the memorandum of arrest only states that there was a seizure from the Page No.# 14/16 Mahindra Balero vehicle bearing registration No. AS-03-M-6467 and that the accused is being arrested upon reasonable beliefs/prima facie prove that the goods are liable to confiscation under section 60/61 NDPS Act and the accused liable to proceedings under section 8(C) r/w 22C(c)/ 29 of the NDPS Act. 26. Similarly, the intimation to the relative of the other accused also states about seizure of the contraband from Balero car bearing registration No. AS-03-M-6467 and registered of the case under 8(C) r/w 22C(c), 29 of the NDPS Act. 27. It is now well settled that grounds of arrest to be meaningful and to fulfill the requirements laid down in terms of the Constitutional provisions – have to be in sufficient detail and specific to the accused as to why he has been arrested and to enable his defence by his family. In the memorandum of arrest and the intimation to relative, it has not been stated as to how the accused was linked to the vehicle mentioned and to the seizure. It is also not stated therein that contraband was seized from the possession of the accused persons/arrestees. In the intimation to the family member, though it is mentioned about seizure of the contraband from the aforementioned Balero car, but no narration is there as to the connection between the arrested accused with the contraband and the vehicle. 28. Upon perusing these relevant materials and in the backdrop of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashish Kakkar (supra) - in the instant case also, this court is constrained to come to the conclusion that the narration in the grounds of arrest cannot be considered to be compliance with the requirements of section 47 BNSS. Similarly, with Page No.# 15/16 regard to the other accused, the narration narration in the memorandum of arrest and the limited narration in the intimation to relative also cannot be taken as having complied with the requirement under section 48 BNSS. At the cost of repetition, it has to be mentioned that the notice under section 47 BNSS is completely bereft of any grounds of arrest with regard to both the accused persons. 29. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion – I come to the considered finding that the mandatory requirements under section 47/48 BNSS fell short of the requisite standards laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra). Therefore, it can be said that even though the alleged offences are of a very serious nature, the procedural infirmities at the time of arrest were violative of the constitutional provisions under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. 30. Hence, in terms of the governing law, the continued detention of the accused persons is rendered untenable and they are required to be given bail at this case. 31. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two suitable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall not abscond; (b) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to Page No.# 16/16 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; (c) shall not commit any illegal activities including any activities prohibited by the NDPS Act; and (d) shall not in any manner hamper or tamper with evidence. 32. In case of violation of any of the bail conditions, the learned prosecution shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail. 33. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant