Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010257272025 2025:GAU-AS:17420 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3857/2025 SRI MEHER BRAHMA SON OF SWMLA BRAHMA, RESIDENT OF MANDARGURI, PS-MAZBAT, DIST- UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-784509. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A A R KARIM, MR. A DEB,MR S RAHMAN,MR M HOQUE,GK GOGOI,Ms. R. R. BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.12.2025 Heard Mr. A.A.R. Karim, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/5 Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Meher Brahma, has prayed for bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 01/2025 (arising out of Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 133/2024), pending in the court learned Special Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur. 3. The allegation in the FIR is about recovery of 24.50 kg of suspected ganja from the present petitioner on 28.07.2024 and on the same day, the FIR was also lodged. The accused was arrested on 29.07.2024 and since then he is in custody. The penal provisions pertaining to alleged commercial quantity of ganja has been given and therefore, the applicability of the rigors of section 37 of NDPS Act has to be seen. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised a contention about non-compliance with the procedural requirement pertaining to the notice under Section 47 BNSS. It is submitted that there is no compliance with the stipulation pertaining to the said notice, apart from the aspect of length of detention. The case resulted in a charge sheet and presently, at the stage of trial pursuant to framing of charge and two prosecution witnesses are stated to have been examined out of eight witnesses. 4. On the other hand, the learned prosecution after referring to the relevant portion of the TCR, draws my attention to the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by the learned JMFC at the time of production of the accused petitioner, it is stated there in that the accused has been arrested in compliance with the provision of law. It is also stated that the accused submitted before the said learned court that his family would engage a counsel but on that day a legal aid counsel was appointed. In this Page No.# 3/5 backdrop, the learned prosecution taking its argument forward submits that it cannot be said that petitioner suffered any prejudice as he could make his defence before the learned court below, that the learned counsel and his family was also preparing to engage a counsel. It is contended that therefore, the petitioner cannot take the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory notice. 5. I have perused the relevant materials and given my consideration to the matter. Before dealing with the merits, the contention regarding notice at the time of arrest has to be seen. For this purpose, the notice under Section 47 BNSS available in the scanned report is reproduced herein below- NOTICE U/S-47 BNSS To, Sri Meher Bramha (22y) S/O- Swmla Brahma Vill- Mandarguri PS-Mazbat Dist Udalguri (Assam) Page No.# 4/5 Ref: Dhekiajuli PS Case No. 133/24 U/S- 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 You are hereby informed that you are under arrested in connection with the above reference case which is no-bilable to Police. So, you are forwarded to the court, you may submit petition before the Hon’ble court of your bail. Signature of arrestee: Signature of I/O 6. In terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the aforesaid nature of the notice under Section 47 BNSS would not be sufficient to meet the constitutional standards under Article 22(1) of Constitution of India. 7. In my considered opinion the decision in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) has not said that such compliance would be subject to the test of prejudice and said position in terms of the principles in these decisions still hold the field. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. Darshan, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, somewhat different viewpoint seems to have been taken. However, the decisions are of equal coram. 8. Coming back to the facts of the instant case – as the aforesaid notice would not meet the constitutional stands in terms the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as already mentioned above. 9. In the given facts and circumstances, I come to the considered Page No.# 5/5 opinion that despite the serious nature of alleged offences, the petitioner has to be released on bail at this stage, subject to conditions. 10. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 01/2025 (arising out of Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 133/2024), on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court (Special Judge, Tezpur, Sonitpur). 11. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) That the petitioner shall not abscond; (b) That the petitioner shall be available during the remaining trial; (c) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (d) That the petitioner shall not intimidate or harass or try to influence any witnesses; and (e) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any illegal activity, including under the NDPS Act. 12. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 13. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant