Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010260772025 2025:GAU-AS:17478 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3796/2025 MANJU DEVI W/O SEHMAT ANSARI R/O SONAPUR GANGWAL, PS SONAPUR , DIST CHAPRA, BIHAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA TO BE REP. BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR A AHMED,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 15.12.2025 Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the NCB. 2. This application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting of bail to the petitioner, namely, Manju Devi, who is behind bars since 24.06.2025, in connection with NCB Guwahati Crime No. 07/2025, registered under Sections 8 (c) of the NDPS Act, read with Section 21(C)/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 24.06.2025, on an allegation that certain amount of narcotics had been Page No.# 2/5 recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of arrest, the petitioner had not been made aware of the grounds of arrest as required under the provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, and further that the friend/family/relative of the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of arrest etc. immediately upon the arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSs, 2023, has been held to be violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest and further remand of the petitioner stood vitiated. He accordingly, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been held in the case of Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana & Another; reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, that the requirement of informing the friend/relative of the arrested person is mandatory requirement and the violation of the same would render the arrest and further detention to be in violation of the law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Others –Vs- State (Criminal Appeal No. 4505 of 2025, disposed of on 14th of October, 2025, to impress upon the Court that the requirement is mandatory and substantial compliance would not serve the purposes of law. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, thereafter relied upon the orders passed in Bail Application No. 3121 of 2025, disposed of by this Court on 31.10.2025, where under similar circumstances of non-communication to the relatives of the accused, this Court had granted bail to the arrested person. 8. Mr S C Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the NCB, by referring to the Case Page No.# 3/5 Diary, has submitted that immediately upon the arrest, the petitioner was allowed to communicate with her elder brother over telephone and simultaneously, an email had been forwarded to the Police Authorities in Bihar, to communicate with the father of the petitioner. The print out of the said e-mail is also available in the Case Diary along with the written communication attached to the said e-mail. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has referred to the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah –Vs- State of Maharashtra; neutral citation being 2025 INSC 1288, where at Paragraph-34, the Apex Court has held that the objective enshrined in Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India for furnishing grounds of arrest stems from the fundamental principle of providing opportunity to a person who is allowed to defend himself from the accusations, that are levelled against him, leading to his arrest. The salutary purpose of informing the grounds of arrest is to enable the person to understand the basis of his arrest and engage legal counsel to challenge his arrest, remand or seek bail or avail any other remedy as may be available to him under the law. At Paragraph- 42 of the aforesaid Judgment, the Apex Court had had held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing in order to attain the two intended purpose of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to the order dated 02.12.2025, passed in Bail Application No. 3468/2025, to impress this Court that in similar circumstances, where the wife of the accused applicant therein was immediately intimated about the grounds of arrest of the accused applicant over phone, this Court had deemed it to be substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He accordingly, prays that the bail application may be dismissed. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties. 12. In the present case, we find that although the respondents have asserted that the brother of the petitioner had been informed over telephone regarding the arrest of the Page No.# 4/5 petitioner herein, there is no assertion made that the written communication had been sent on the WhatsApp number, on which the brother of the petitioner had been communicated, unlike the situation that was prevalent in the case of Bail Application No. 3468/2025, on which the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has relied upon. In the said case, this Court while observing that the wife of accused applicant had been informed over the phone. It was also observed that the scanned copies of the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, was immediately sent to her on WhatsApp in her mobile number. In the present case, this Court also notices that though the petitioner was arrested on 24.06.2026, and it is the assertion of the respondents that information regarding her arrest had been sent by e-mail along with an attached copy of the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, to the father of the petitioner through e-mail, addressed to Police authorities in the Bihar Police, no record or statement has been made before this Court that any efforts were made to find out whether such notices were actually served upon the father of the petitioner or not. This is despite time having been granted on at least two occasions to have instructions on the receipt of the notice by the father of the petitioner. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the relative/friend/family of the petitioner were not effectively informed about the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner does not belong to the State of Assam. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to have ensured that proper communication of the grounds of arrest of the petitioner were made. 14. This Court also notices the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner than an amount of 0.153 kgs of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner and the same was clubbed together with recoveries made from another co- passenger to have the entire total amount brought to the level of a commercial quantity. Without commenting on the above submission, this Court is of the considered view that due to the violation of the fundamental right of petitioner under Article 22(1) of the Page No.# 5/5 Constitution of India, when the respondents failed to appropriately intimate the grounds of arrest to the family/friends/relative of the accused petitioner, this Court directs that the petitioner be released on bail on her furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 2 lacs, with 2 (two) sureties of the like amount, one of whom should be a Government Servant and residing within the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required by the learned Trial Court. (ii) That the petitioner 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 from the trial pending against the petitioner. (iii) That the petitioner shall provide her contact details including photocopies of her Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN Card, mobile number, and other contact details before the learned Trial Court, if the same are not seized by the NCB officials; and (iv) That the petitioner shall not misuse her liberty by indulging in any illegal activities including any activities of peddling Narcotics Drugs. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the NCB has submitted that there is probability that the notices on the father of the petitioner have been served appropriately and it is only the failure to produce the relevant documents as of today. In case, the notices as required under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, had been submitted upon the father of the petitioner, the respondents would be at liberty to move appropriate application to bring the same to the notice of this Court. 16. Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant