Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010227872025 2025:GAU-AS:15791 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3338/2025 TINKU DAS SON OF SHRI BAPPI DAS R/O PHOOLBARI, NAREEP TIMUNG GAON, P.O. KHATKHATI, P.S. BOKAJAN, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782480. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, MR S R A NASER,MR. H ROHMAN,MR G ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 20-11-2025 Heard Mr. G. Alam, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying Page No.# 2/5 for grant of bail to the accused applicant in connection with Khatkhati P.S. Case No.24/2025 registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the fact as alleged in the FIR lodged on 04.03.2025 filed by one Amar Jyoti Sarma, SI(P) is that on receipt of certain confidential information during the routine Naka checking on National Highwy-39, Khatkhati at about 7 PM on 04.03.2025, the accused applicant was intercepted while he was riding a pulsar motor bike. While checking the bag he was carrying, the police seized hundred bottles of cough syrup (Triprolidine Hydrocholoride & Codeine Phosphat Syrup) each containing 100 ml 4. On receipt of the FIR, aforesaid Khatkhati P.S. Case No.24/2025 was registered under the aforementioned sections. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that while arresting the accused applicant by the arresting authority, provisions of Section 48 as well as 36 of BNSS were not complied with. He submits that the arrest memo issued under Section 36 of the BNSS did have attestation by any relatives or of respectable persons of the locality from where the arrest was made in the arrest memo. He further submits that notice under Section 48 of BNSS was also not sent immediately to any relative or nominated person or friend of the arrested person. He submits that the arrest memo contained the signature of 2(two) officials, who were neither relative nor respectable persons of the locality from where the arrest was made. He further submits that the notice under Section 48 of BNSS did not contain any grounds of arrest. He, therefore, submits that in Page No.# 3/5 view of the settled position of law as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 in respect of arrest memo under Section 36, whereas, the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC online supreme court 269, in respect of the Section 48 were not complied with, therefore, the accused applicant has unfettered right to be allowed to go on bail. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that there is no violation of Section 36 as well as 48 BNSS has been committed by the authority. He submits that accused applicant was immediately on his arrest was given arrest memo under Section 36 of BNSS, the notice under Section 47 along with the grounds of his arrest as well as notice under 48 of BNSS was also issued giving full particulars of his reasons of arrest. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that there is no violation of statutory provisions as provided under aforementioned sections. 7. This Court has gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as the case diary submitted in the instant case and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that although the arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS contains 2(two) signatures but the same are of officials belonging to the arresting authority and they are neither any relative or respectable Page No.# 4/5 persons of the locality from where the arrest was made. It is also seen that though notice under Section 48 BNSS was issued to the wife of the accused applicant, which was, in fact, received by the wife of the accused applicant, no grounds of arrest were provided in the notice. 9. Taking into account the fact that i.e. the non-compliance of Section 36 BNSS which is of mandatory nature as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of D. K. Basu (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that apparently the mandates of statutory provision of Section 36 have not been complied with by the arresting authority. As far as the notice under Section 48 of BNSS is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex in the case of Vihaan Kumar (Supra), has clearly laid down that it is obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives nor person nominated by the arrested person is to ensure that they would be able to take immediate prompt action to secure release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest in writing to the friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person is the mandate of the Article 22 (1) of the Constitution India and any violation of the same makes the arrest illegal. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and taking into account of the fact that the accused applicant has already spent more than 250 days behind the bars and having found that there are non-compliances of mandatory provisions of Section 36 and 48 of BNSS, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused applicant has made out a case for his release in the instant case. Page No.# 5/5 11. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused applicant shall be released forthwith on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- along with 2(two) sureties of like nature (one of whom should be a Government servant residing within the State of Assam) to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge (NDPS), Karbi Anglong, Diphu, subject to following conditions: 1) That the accused applicant shall cooperate with the trial and shall appear before the trial court, as and when required by trial court; 2) That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts from the trial pending against the accused applicant; and 3) That the accused applicant shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar card or driving licence or pan card, mobile numbers and other contact details before the trial court if the same are not seized by the arresting authority. 4) That the accused applicant shall not misuse his liberty by indulging in any illegal activities including any activities of selling or peddling of drugs. 12. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant