Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010210092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3046/2025 MD SALATUR RAHAMAN AND ANR SON OF MD. ALAOUDDIN MAYANGMAYUM, SORA MAMANG LEIKAI, IRENGBAND, PO KAKCHING, PS KAKCHING, DISTRICT KAKCHING, THOUBAL, STATE MANIPUR, PIN 795103 2: ZIAO RAHMAN SON OF MD TAMIJUR RAHAMAN SORA MAYAI LEIKAI IRENG PO KAKCHING PS KAKCHING DISTRICT KAKCHING THOUBAL STATE MANIPUR PIN - 79510 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NCB. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,MR. S SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 12.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Md. Salatur Rahaman, and (2) Ziao Rahaman, who were detained behind the bars since 16.12.2024 in connection with the NDPS Case No. 145/2025 arising out of the NCB Crime No. 12/2024 under Section 8(c)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.12.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., the Inspector Narcotic Control Bureau, Zonal Unit Guwahati had received an information through reliable sources regarding carrying of a huge quantity of methamphetamine tablets by three persons including the present petitioners from Manipur to Guwahati inside a Maruti vehicle bearing registration no. AS-17D- 0983. 4. Accordingly, a search team was constituted and search operation was carried out. During search operation, the present petitioners were found as occupant of the Maruti vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-17D-0983 and on search, 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets were recovered therefrom. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Page No.# 3/10 petitioners have approached this Court, mainly on the ground of violation of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioners in proper form as well as also regarding service of notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 to the relative/friends/nominated person of the petitioners at the time of the arrest. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though in the notice served on the petitioners under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, it has been stated that they were arrested in connection of seizure of 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets, however, it has not been clarified therein as to from whom the seizure was made. He submits that in the notice, no indication has been given as to how the present petitioners were linked with the seizure of the contraband in this case. Hence, he submits that the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioners were not stated in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. 7. He further submits that as regards notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, though it has been stated that the notice in respect of petitioner No.1 - Md. Salatur Rahaman, was sent to Md. Alaouddin Mayangmayum, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that whether the notice was received by the said persons or not. Similarly, in respect of petitioner No. 2, the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, was shown to have been sent to one Ziao Rahman, however, no materials are there to show as to whether the said notice have been received by the addressee or not. Page No.# 4/10 8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that at the time of preparation of arrest memo after the arrest of the petitioners, the signatures of independent witnesses were not obtained on the arrest memo as required under law and, therefore, he submits that there has been violation of mandatory statutory provisions of law which entitles them to get bail in this case. 9. In support of his submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, he has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the following cases :- i. “Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2025 SCC online, SC 269” ; ii. “Praveen Prakash Rao Vs. State of Kerala” reported in 2009 (1) KLT 259. iii. “Prabir Purkaystha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)“ reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934; iv. “Ahmed Mansoor Vs. State (represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police)” (Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025) 10. On the other hand, Ms. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that in the instant case, the contraband seized from the petitioners is of commercial quantity, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable in this case. Page No.# 5/10 11. She further submits that the notice issued to the petitioners under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, was served on the petitioners themselves and in acknowledgment thereof, they have put their signatures in the said notice. She also submits that the notice clearly gives an indication that the arrest of the petitioners was in connection of seizure of 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets and, therefore, she submits that the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioners in the above noted case were clearly stated in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. 12. She further submits that, as regards to the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 is concerned, the Investigating Officer has stated in the final complaint submitted in this case, that the said notices were sent to the relatives of the petitioners whose names were mentioned in the said notice through the registered post with A/D, however, they have not received any information regarding service of notice on the addressee. 13. The learned counsel for the NCB, however, submits that at the time of the arrest of the petitioners, on the body of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 itself, the petitioners have acknowledged the fact, in their own handwriting, that they have intimated about their arrest through their relatives, i.e., their brother-in-law, over telephone. She, therefore, submits that there has been full compliance of the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives of the arrested person in this case. 14. She further submits that in addition to acknowledging the fact of Page No.# 6/10 intimation about their arrest to the brother-in-laws of the present petitioners, the petitioners have also specifically mentioned the mobile numbers over which calls were made to the brother-in-laws of the petitioners. She, therefore, submits that there has been no violation of the mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of arrest, in writing, either to the petitioners or to their relatives/friends/ nominated person, as mandated under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, respectively. She, therefore, prays for dismissing this bail application. In support of her submission, she has cited the following orders of the co-ordinate benches of this court: i. Sri Chandrajoy Jamatiya and Another Vs. Union of India (DRI) (Bail Application No. 1660/2024) ii. Amir Khan and Others Vs. Union of India (Bail Application No. 2088/2025) 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record, including the scanned copy of the records of the Trial Court, which was the requisitioned in connection with this case. 16. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners on which the petitioners are seeking bail in this case is non- disclosure of basic fact which necessitated the arrest of the petitioners in the aforementioned case. It appears that though, in the notice served under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 to the petitioners, it is stated that the petitioners have been arrested in Page No.# 7/10 connection with NCB Case No. 12/2024 for violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 in connection with seizure of 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets and the case is a non- bailable case, however, on a bare perusal of the notice, it cannot be comprehended as to from where the contraband was recovered and how the petitioners are linked with the same. If the contraband was recovered from the possession of the petitioners, this court fails to understand why the same was not communicated clearly to them. The notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 should clearly state the accusation against the arrested person and how he is connected with the alleged offence. In the instant case, the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, though, cryptically states that the petitioners were arrested in connection with seizure of 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets, however, falls short of clearly indicating as to how the petitioners were linked with the seizure of contraband. This court fails to understand as to what prevented the arresting authorities to clearly indicate the accusations against the petitioners in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 served on them. Since, it is no longer res-integra that communication of grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee is a mandatory constitutional requirement and non-compliance of the same vitiate the arrest of such an arrestee, this Court is of the opinion that the notice served on the petitioners under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 falls short of clearly indicating the ground of arrest including the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Page No.# 8/10 17. As regards the applicability of the observations of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan” (Supra) regarding absence of demonstrable prejudice to the petitioners in this case is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that as Division Bench of this Court in the case of “National Investigating Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin (Order dated 21.08.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 234/2024) has observed that in view of the judgment of the constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi” (Supra) it is the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. the State of Haryana” (Supra) which would be binding on this Court and not the judgment in the case of “State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan” (Supra). 18. As regards the question as to whether the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was properly served on the friends/relatives/nominated persons of the petitioners, apart from the fact that in the final complaint petition, the NCB has stated that said notices were sent to the relatives of the petitioners by the registered post with A/D, nothing could be shown in the record like the postal receipt showing the actual sending the notice to the relative of the petitioners soon after the arrest of the petitioners or the postal track consignment report to indicate that the notice was actually received by the persons to whom it were shown to be sent. 19. 19. When the petitioners have contended that notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 were not received by their relatives/friends/nominated persons, the burden shifts on the prosecution side to show that the said notices were actually served Page No.# 9/10 on such persons. As communication of grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of an arrestee is not a mere procedural formality, rather same is mandatory constitutional requirement. The arresting authority, therefore, may not be allowed to water down the said mandatory constitutional requirement. Any authority exercising the powers of arrest is bound to comply with the mandatory constitutional requirement. The NCB (arresting authority in this case) has fallen short of complying with the said constitutional requirement while arresting the petitioners in this case. The plea that the offences involved in this case are serious in nature may not be allowed to be used as license to whittle down the mandatory constitutional requirements. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners are entitled to get bail in this case for failure of the arresting authority to comply with the mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioners in its true perspective. 21. Accordingly, the above named petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each with two sureties of like amount (one of whom should be a government servant and residing within the State of Assam) subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall cooperate in the trial of NDPS Case No 145/2025, which is pending in the Trial Court; ii. That the petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; Page No.# 10/10 iii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioners; iv. That the petitioners shall provide their contact details including photocopies of their Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioners shall submit their leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. 22. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant