Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010253142025 2025:GAU-AS:16528 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3468/2025 RAKESH AHAMMED S/O- LATE HIRAN MIAH ALIAS HIRAN MIYAH R/O- PUTIA P.S- KALAM CHOWRA DIST- SEPAHIJALA TRIPURA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE S.C NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC NCB appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 02.12.2025 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I. U. Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the NCB. Page No.# 2/6 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the code of BNSS, 2023, for granting of bail to the accused-applicant in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 10/2025, registered under Sections 8(c)/22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the NCB Guwahati Zonal Unit on 23.07.2025 at around 2030 hrs, received an information from a reliable source that one person namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan was carrying 30-35 kgs of Methamphetamine tablet and he would be reaching at Hojai Railway Station on 25.07.2025 by Nagaland Express. After receipt of the aforementioned information, a team of NCB officials proceeded to the place of occurrence and after apprehending the aforesaid Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan, the contraband materials were seized from his possession. Accordingly, the NCB registered the case being NCB Guwahati Crime No. 10/2025, under the aforementioned sections. 4. That the accused-applicant was arrested on 25.07.2025 at Imphal in connection with the aforementioned case and since then, he is in judicial custody for the last 130 days. 5. It is the case of the accused-applicant that the co-accused namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan was known to the accused-applicant as both worked in a same camp at one point of time earlier. It is also stated that the aforesaid co-accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused-applicant, promising of returning the same within 5(five) months. However, since the co-accused failed to return the money, the accused- applicant contacted him several times for return of the money, but the same was not done by the aforesaid co-accused. It is stated that in the meantime, since the co-accused was arrested by the Police, the co-accused had implicated him in the aforesaid offences falsely as the accused-applicant had threatened him for taking legal action against him for not returning the borrowed money. 6. Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused- Page No.# 3/6 applicant submits that the accused-applicant though, knew the aforesaid co-accused, he is no way linked to the offences as alleged to have been committed by the co-accused. He further submits that the accused-applicant has been arrested by the NCB officials only on the ground of a statement of the co-accused implicating him. Therefore, referring to the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 as well as the case of State by (NCB) Bengaluru Vs. Pallulabid Admad Arimutta and Another, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 63, submits that a confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the Trial of any offence under the NDPS Act. He submits that arrest of the accused-applicant by the NCB officials on the basis of confessional/voluntary statement of the co-accused, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot form the basis of any other materials which directly links the accused-applicant to the alleged offences committed by the aforesaid co- accused, the arrest of the accused-applicant in the instant case cannot be ascertained. 7. The learned Senior Counsel has taken up another ground that notice under Section 48 of the BNSS is in violation of the mandates of the right laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. The learned Senior Counsel submits that no notice under Section 48 was received by any of his relatives or nominated person or friend about the Grounds of Arrest of the accused-applicant. He submits that the violation of Section 48 of the BNSS, which is mandatory in nature, if not issued in the manner as prescribed under the aforesaid Section 48, makes the arrest illegal and thereby, the accused-applicant gets the right to be released on bail on that ground alone. 8. In this connection, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the notice issued under Section 48, which has been annexed to the instant bail application. He submits that from the aforesaid, it could not be ascertained whether the aforesaid notice was ever received by the addressee i.e. Papia Aktar, wife of the accused-applicant who is a resident of Tripura. Page No.# 4/6 9. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel submits that since there is a violation of Section 48 of the BNSS and the accused-applicant has been arrested only on the basis of confessional statement of the main accused i.e. Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan, the arrest is palpably wrong and therefore, the accused-applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 10. Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel for the NCB, on the other hand, submits that there is no violation of Section 48 notice as the wife of the accused-applicant was immediately informed by the NCB officials over the phone, as well as the notice was immediately sent to the aforesaid wife by way of Whatsapp. She further submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials available in the Case Diary, which indicates the involvement of the accused-applicant in the offences so alleged along with the co- accused namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan. She, therefore, opposes granting of bail to the accused-applicant. 11. This Court had gone through the materials brought before this Court as well as perused the Case Diary submitted by the NCB. 12. On perusal of the documents available in the Case Diary, it is seen that the wife of the accused-applicant i.e. Papia Aktar was immediately intimated about the grounds of arrest of the accused-applicant over the phone as well as the scanned copy of the notice under Section 48 was immediately sent to her on Whatsapp in her mobile number, which was given to the NCB officials by the accused-applicant at the time of his arrest. 13. It is also seen from the record that, in fact, the wife of the accused-applicant had immediately came to Assam and applied for a bail for the accused-applicant before the learned Court of Special Judge, NDPS, Hojai, on 31.07.2025, after 5(five) days of the arrest of the accused-applicant. It is also seen from the records that the accused-applicant has himself signed the note wherein, he acknowledged that he had contacted his wife over the phone about the arrest on 25.07.2025 at 6:00 PM over her mobile phone. Page No.# 5/6 14. As far as the confessional statement and the implication of the accused-applicant by the co-accused namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan is concerned, this Court has gone through the statements recorded by the NCB officials of the accused-applicant as well as of the aforesaid co-accused. 15. It is seen from the confessional statement of the accused-applicant that he has admitted of knowing the co-accused, namely Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan since long time when they both were working in the CRPF. He has admitted of arranging the carrier to carry the seized Methaphetamine tablets for two other persons and accordingly, he was to be paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by the said persons for arranging to carry the seized contraband items. Therefore, it is seen that he himself admitted that he has engaged the co-accused namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan to carry the contraband drugs which were seized by the NCB officials. It is also seen from the records that several amounts of money had been transferred to the account of the co-accused, namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan by the accused-applicant on 12.07.2025, just a fortnight before the seizure of the contraband materials by the NCB officials. It is also seen from the records that several Whatsapp messages discussing about the payment of 2,50,000/- to the accused-applicant had been discussed between the accused-applicant and the aforesaid co-accused. 16. In view of the aforesaid incriminating materials, indicating prima facie involvement of the accused-applicant in the offfence alleged in the FIR by the NCB officials, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the accused-applicant was arrested not only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused namely, Santosh Kumar Tamilselvan. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in the cases of Tofan Singh (supra) as well as Pallulabid Admad Arimutta (supra), is not applicable or relevant to the instant case in hand. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions, and finding prima facie materials indicating the involvement of the accused-applicant in the offence alleged in the offence report Page No.# 6/6 dated 23.07.2025, this Court does not find any merit in the instant bail application and therefore, the same is rejected. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant