Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010194402025 2025:GAU-AS:15948 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2844/2025 BANIAMEEN AHMED ASHRAF S/O LATE ABDUL MATIN R/O BONOMALI WEST KANISHAIL P.S. KARIMGANJ DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the accused Page No.# 2/5 applicant. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused petitioner, namely, Baniameen Ahmed Ashraf praying for grant of bail in connection with Karimganj P.S Case No. 282/2025 registered under Section 22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act. 3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that for the moment he is not going to the merits of the matter and the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as penal provisions pertaining to commercial quantity have been given at this stage. It is submitted and contended that the primary contention of the petitioner at this stage is that though notice under 48 narrated some grounds of arrest in both English and Bengali, but it was purportedly given to Yamen Ahmed Ashfaque, the brother of the petitioner. 4. Drawing attention to para 7 of the bail petition supported by affidavit, it is stated and submitted that though the notice under 48 BNSS indicated service of notice to the said Yamin Ahmed Ashfaque, the younger brother of the petitioner, but on that day he was at Mizoram and stayed in Hotel Serene Stay for the period from 09-06-2025 to 14-06-2025 and he was not present at the place of occurrence, where the accused was arrested. As per the materials, the accused was arrested on 12-06-2025, within the jurisdiction of Karimganj police station. The copy of the hotel receipt has been annexed as Annexure- 4 and the notice under Section 48 as Annexure 5. 5. I have carefully perused the notice under Section 48 BNSS as well as the hotel receipt. 6. It is submitted that when the brother of the accused came to know about the arrest of the present petitioner, he moved out of the hotel and obtained this Page No.# 3/5 receipt dated 14-06-2025. As per the statement in Para 7, he was in the hotel since 09-06-2025, though it has been wrongly typed as 09-06-2024. 7. Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed the case diary before me and draws attention to the relevant portions. It is endorsed in the case diary that notice under Section 48 was provided to the family member of the accused but the name of any such family member is not mentioned. It is submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. that there is no infirmity in providing the notice under Section 48 of BNSS. 8. During the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn my attention to para 18 of the Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) which may be reproduced herein below. “18. Thus, the following principles of law could be said to have been laid down, rather very well explained, in Vihaan Kumar (supra): a) The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional condition. b) Once a person is arrested, his right to liberty under Article 21 is curtailed. When such an important fundamental right is curtailed, it is necessary that the person concerned must understand on what grounds he has been arrested.” 9. Thus, I find that it has been laid down emphatically by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the grounds of arrest have to be provided to the family members/relatives of the accused. It can be said that in a way, the notice under section 48 BNSS is even more important than the notice under 47 BNSS, though both are mandatory requirements under the statutory law as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This is because, on behalf of the detained persons, it is the family members or relatives, who would be in a better position to take steps to prepare for his defence and engagement of counsel. If the notice under 48 BNSS is provided to any fictitious person, then it would not amount to compliance with the spirit and substance of Section 48 Page No.# 4/5 BNSS. In such a situation, it can be said that, it would amount to not providing the notice at all. 10. Needless to say that the settled law is that in case of failure to provide the notice under 47/48 of the BNSS, the continued under trial detention of the accused becomes untenable. 11. In the present case, although penal provisions of commercial quantity are involved; however, upon perusing the statements in the statements in paragraph-7 supported by the affidavits; the hotel receipts and the endorsement in the notice; the relevant portions of the case diary – I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner side has made out a reasonable possibility of fatal infirmity in the notice under Section 48 BNSS, even though the grounds are narrated. In such view of the matter and in terms of the settled law, I find the accused to be entitled to bail. 12. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, the accused person herein is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi Karimganj and subject to the following conditions that:- (i) That the accused person shall co-operate with the remaining investigation. (ii) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. (iii) He shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities prohibited under the NDPS Act. 13. In case of violation of any bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move a suitable application for cancellation of the bail application of the petitioner. 14. This bail application stands allowed and disposed of. Page No.# 5/5 15. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant