Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010213622025 2025:GAU-AS:14373 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3158/2025 SULTANA BEGUM AND 3 ORS. WIFE OF MD MIRAJ ALI R/O VILL-HOGALTOLI, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM 2: HASINA KHATUN D/O MD MIRAJ ALI R/O VILL-HOGALTOLI P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 3: MD AJIBUR ALI SON OF MD MIRAJ ALI R/O VILL-HOGALTOLI P.S. LAHARIGHAT DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 4: FAJILA BEGUM W/O- LATE. HASAN ALI VILLAGE- NO.2 BORGHULI P.S. OLONI KALIABAR DIST. NAGAON ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A HUSSAIN, MR. K ALOM,MR. A HUDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 28.10.2025 1. Heard Md. A. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Sultana Begum, 2. Hasina Khatun, 3. Md. Ajibur Ali and 4. Fajila Begum, who were arrested on 03.07.2025 and have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Guwahati GRPS Case No. 101/2025, registered under Section 21(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the allegations in the FIR is about the GRP Personnel pursuant to checking in Kannyakumari Vivek Express at the Guwahati Railway Station recovered suspected heroin (brown sugar) from the petitioners, who were passengers in the train. 4. Though the aggregate quantity of the suspected heroin is stated to be 298 gms, thereby falling in the (commercial quantity) and accordingly, such penal provisions have been given – however, the materials indicate that individuals recoveries have also been segregated by the police officials and they indicate recovery of suspected heroin of 132 gms from the petitioner no.1; 111 gm from the petitioner no.2; 55 gms from the petitioner no.4. Page No.# 3/5 5. It is contended that there is no recovery from the petitioner no.3, who is also challenged person. 6. Though the aggregate of the suspected contraband falls in the (commercial quantity each) but as individual recoveries have been segregated and this amounts fall in the (intermediate quantities each). Therefore, as per the governing principles on the subject matter, the same has to be taken as intermediate quantity for the purpose of adjudication of bail petitions like the instant one and applicability of the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 7. The case diary as called for has been received. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the petitioners were travelling together and prima-facie, they were caught with the suspected contraband. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also fairly submits that he does not dispute the segregated nature of the individual recoveries. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends about the non-compliance with the notice rigors under Section 47/48 BNSS. 11. It is contended that while the notice under Section 47 BNSS contends the grounds, the same is in English language and there is no endorsement regarding any translation. 12. It is also contended that the notice under Section 48 BNSS was sent by way of a W.T. Message and there is no material to indicate that it was conveyed to the relatives. Page No.# 4/5 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also submits that whether the notice was delivered to a family member also could not be confirmed from the case diary. 14. In any case, the said notices are also in English language without a corresponding vernacular component in a language understood by the petitioner. Therefore, especially the notice under Section 48 BNSS would falls short of the standards required under the law laid down in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254: (2024) SCC Online SC 934 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) SCC Online SC 269. 15. Also keeping in mind the individual quantities allegedly recovered, the statutory period applicable to the commercial quantity would not apply to the individual petitioners, who have been in custody since 03.07.2025. 16. Accordingly, in the entire facts and circumstances, I deem it fit to grant bail to the accused petitioners at this stage. 17. In such view of the matter, the above-named accused persons are allowed to go on bail of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) only each with one surety each of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court with following conditions: (i) That the accused persons shall be available for the trial; if one commences; (ii) That the accused persons shall not hamper or Page No.# 5/5 tamper with evidence; (iii) That the accused persons shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities 18. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 19. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant