Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010216982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3181/2025 ASMAT ALI SON OF SONA UDDIN , RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARUABAKRA, P.S. CHAPAR, SUB DISTRICT- CHAR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MR. S R BARBHUIYA,MR M HUSSAIN,MR. A K AZAD,MR. N HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 20.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been Page No.# 2/5 filed by the petitioner, namely, Asmat Ali, who has been detained behind the bars in connection with Howli P. S. Case No. 78/2025 under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The aforesaid case was registered on filing of an FIR by one Shri Gopal Borah, SI of Police, inter-alia, alleging that on receipt of an information, received through reliable sources that the goods carrier mini-truck bearing Registration No. AS-25-FC-3987 will be coming from Howly to Guwahati and will be carrying huge quantity of narcotic substance, a police team was constituted, and a naka checking was arranged. 4. It was found that the aforesaid truck, bearing Registration No. AS-25-FC-3987, was diverted towards parking area and the driver was trying to park the vehicle there. The police team apprehended him and the driver was identified as Asmat Ali. 5. On search of the said truck, total No. of 26,000 yaba tablets. weighing about 2,600 grams were recovered therefrom. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking bail in this case, mainly on the ground of violation of his fundamental right, guaranteed under Article 22(1) and statutory right guaranteed under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 in as much as the grounds of arrest were not properly communicated to him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, though, can put his signatures in English language, he understands only Bengali language. Notice under Section 47 of the Page No.# 3/5 BNSS, 2023 was served to him which is in English language. Therefore, he submits that the grounds of arrest may not be regarded as communicated to him in the manner, in which it is required to be communicated. 8. He further submits that in support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Nayananda (2025)”, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he or she understands. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the notice under Section 47 of BNS, 2023 was not served to him prior to two hours of the time when he was produced before the Magistrate. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the ground of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity of 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. 11. He submits that on the basis of the notice that was furnished to the petitioner under Section 47 of the NDPS, 1985 it is apparent that in the same notice the accusation made against the present petitioner and the facts necessitating his arrest has been detailed elaborately. 12. He submits that though the notice under Section 47 of the NDPS Page No.# 4/5 Act, 1985, which was served on the present petitioner has been written in English language, the petitioner himself has put his signature there only in English language. However, he further submits that nowhere in the bail application as well as before the Magistrate before whom the petitioner was produced, he took the plea that he understands only Bengali language. He further submits that no plea has been taken before the Magistrate, before whom he was produced, that he failed to understand the content of the notice served on him under Section 47 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 13. Further, he also submits that in the body of the notice itself it has been clearly stated that the grounds of arrest were explained to the arrestee in his mother tongue. Hence, he submits that the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and, therefore, he prays for dismissing the bail application. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the trial court records. 15. In the instant case, on perusal of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which was served on the petitioner, it is apparent that the same mentions about the basic facts as well as accusation against the petitioner, which necessitated his arrest in Howli P. S. Case No. 78/2025. The only aspect which is relevant in this case is that the said notice was written in English language. However, in the body of the notice itself, it has been also endorsed that the contents of notice were explained to the petitioner in his mother tongue. It also appears that the petitioner has also put his Page No.# 5/5 signatures in the said notice in English language. 16. There is no dispute to the legal proposition that the communication of grounds of arrest to an arrestee, in writing, must be in the language which he understands. However, in the instant case, the petitioner never took any plea before the Magistrate before whom he was produced, after his arrest, that he does not understand English language or that the contents of the notice were not communicated to him in the language he understands. Even in the instant bail application nowhere the petitioner has taken any categorical plea that he does not understand English language. Under such circumstances, the plea raised by the petitioner is not acceptable. 17. For the aforesaid reasons as well as considering the fact that the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and the embargo of Section 3 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case, which the petitioner has failed to overcome, this bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant