ORDER : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel for the DRI. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. P. Soul, 2. P. Maraipa and 3. Sahil Gurung who are detained behind the bars since 14.12.2024 in connection with DRI Case No. 21/ CL/ NDPS/ HEROIN/ DRI/ GZU/ 2024-25 registered under Sections 8(c)/ 21(c)/22(c)/ 23(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 13.12.2024, on receipt of an information through reliable sources by the Officers of DRI Guwahati Zonal Unit that a truck bearing Registration No. AS-25-EC-3517 carrying two male persons and closely escorted by one white colour Toyota Fortuner car bearing Registration No. UK-07-BS-0189 carrying two male persons and one female person are coming from Jorabat side, a team of DRI officers were constituted and a search operation was conducted. The search team intercepted one Tata truck bearing Registration No. AS-25-EC-3517, where the person sitting in the front cabin of the said truck was identified as P. Soul (petitioner No. 1) in this case as well as one Sailash Sephen, who is the driver of the said truck. The search team also intercepted one Toyota Fortuner car bearing Registration No. UK-07-BS-0189 and the occupant of the said vehicle were identified as Sahil Gurung, Pretty Thoitak and P. Maraipa. 4. During interrogation of the occupants of the vehicle, Sailash Sephen i.e., the driver of the said truck and Ms. Pretty Thoitak revealed that there are 274 numbers of soap cases concealed in specially built cavity/chamber in the driver's cabin of the said truck. 5. Accordingly, a search was conducted and 274 soap cases containing about 3180.83 grams of suspected heroin were seized. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioners are approaching this Court praying for bail for the second time. Their previous application for bail was dismissed by order dated 13.03.2025 in Bail Application No. 302/2025 after perusal of the case diary. 7. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioners are approaching this Court praying for bail for the second time. Their previous application for bail was dismissed by order dated 13.03.2025 in Bail Application No. 302/2025 after perusal of the case diary. 7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this time the petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail mainly on the ground of the violation of their constitutional rights as provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory rights under Section 47 as well as 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though at the time of their arrest the petitioners were served with notices under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, but no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the said notice. He submits that in the said notice mere intimation about their arrest was given. He also submits that the Apex Court has already held that information about the arrest is different from information of grounds of arrest and mere information about arrest will not amount to furnishing the grounds of arrest. He submits that as grounds of arrest were not intimated to the petitioners, they are entitled to get bail on that account only. He also submits that the relatives/friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested persons were also not informed about the grounds of arrest. 9. Though, in the bail application it has been stated that no notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was served on the friends/relatives or nominated persons of the petitioners, however, during the hearing while making submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the notice issued to one Mr. Tia that has been received by the said person on 04.01.2025 and it appears that the said notice was posted by speed post on 28.12.2024. He submits that the grounds of arrest are to be intimated to the relatives or friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person forthwith so that such persons may take steps to secure the release of the petitioners as soon as possible. 10. He submits that the grounds of arrest are to be intimated to the relatives or friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person forthwith so that such persons may take steps to secure the release of the petitioners as soon as possible. 10. However, in the instant case, he submits that though the petitioners were arrested on 13.12.2024 and were produced before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14.12.2024, the notices under Section 48 of the BNSS were sent on 28.12.2024 only and same were received by the relatives/family members/friends only on 04.01.2025, which has frustrated the purpose of issuing notice under Section 48 of the BNSS to the family members of the petitioners. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Vihaan Kumar -Vs- State of Haryana ” reported in “ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 ” in support of his submission, wherein the Apex Court has observed that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is there not only to the arrested person but also to the friends, relative or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested persons so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which such arrest may be rendered illegal. 12. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that in the instant case there has been violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory requirement under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS which renders the arrest of the petitioners illegal and on that count they are entitled to get bail. 13. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the DRI has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that the contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and, therefore, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is applicable to this case. He has submitted that the earlier bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court after considering all the aspects and after perusing the case diary, therefore, the subsequent bail application by the petitioners is not maintainable. 14. He has submitted that the earlier bail application filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court after considering all the aspects and after perusing the case diary, therefore, the subsequent bail application by the petitioners is not maintainable. 14. He also submits that the grounds of arrest of the petitioners were duly communicated to them by serving them with the notices under Section 47 of BNSS. He also submits that the intimation regarding the arrest of the petitioners were immediately communicated telephonically to the relatives/ friends/ nominated persons of the petitioners on the date of their arrest and the notices under Section 48 of the BNSS were also issued, wherein the grounds of arrest of the petitioners were categorically stated. He submits that there is no violation of any constitutional mandate or statutory provisions in this case and he prays that the application for bail filed by the petitioners for the second time may be dismissed. He has also produced the case diary before this Court for its perusal. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary which was produced by the learned standing counsel, DRI. 16. It appears from record that on an earlier occasion, all the above named petitioners had approached this Court seeking their bail in this case. However, their prayer was rejected by order dated 13.03.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 302/2025 after considering the case diary. 17. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioners mainly on the ground that they were not furnished in the grounds of arrest at the time of their arrest. Neither such grounds were furnished in writing to their friends, relatives or such other persons as may be nominated or disclosed by the arrested persons. 18. On perusal of the case diary, it appears that the notices under Section 47 of the BNSS were served on the petitioners on the date of their arrest i.e., on 13.12.2024. To ascertain whether the said notice contains any grounds of arrest or not, let us reproduce one of the notices issued to one of the petitioners in this case. All other notices are drafted in the same manner. To ascertain whether the said notice contains any grounds of arrest or not, let us reproduce one of the notices issued to one of the petitioners in this case. All other notices are drafted in the same manner. Following in the reproduction of the notice served on the petitioner Sahil Gurung- “Notice under Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:- In compliance with the provisions under Section 47 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, You, Shri Sahil Gurung, DOB- 18/05/1999, aged about 25, S/o Shri Prakash Gurung, R/o Village Taphou Naga, P.O:P.S. Senapati Dist.- Senapati, Manipur-795106 are hereby informed that you have been found actively involved in the possession/ transportation/ carrying /dealing with the seized 3180.830 grams of Heroin having total value of Rs. 22,26,58,100/-, seized vide DRI Guwahati Case no. 21/CL/NDPS/HEROIN/DRI/GZU/2024-25 Dated 13.12.2024. Thus, you have consciously violated provisions of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, with rigorous punishment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Therefore, you are being arrested under the provisions of Section 42/43 of NDPS Act, 1985 on 13.12.2024”. 19. If we peruse the aforesaid notice, it appears that it not only contains about the intimation of the arrest of the petitioners in connection with DRI Case No. 21/ CL/ NDPS/ HEROIN/ DRI/ GZU/ 2024-25 but also mentions the grounds in as much as it clearly discloses that the petitioner was found actively involved in the possession/transportation/carrying/ dealing with the 3180.830 gram of heroin which was seized on 13.12.2024 and that the petitioner has consciously violated the provisions of Section 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985. The petitioner was informed about the accusation against him for which he was arrested. The basic facts which necessitated his arrest in this case is that he was found actively involved in possessing/transporting/carrying/ dealing with the seized heroin which in the considered opinion of this Court is sufficient compliance of indicating the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that there is no violation of the constitutional mandate as well as the statutory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioners immediately after their arrest. 20. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that there is no violation of the constitutional mandate as well as the statutory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioners immediately after their arrest. 20. In so far as compliance of Section 48 of BNSS in furnishing the intimation of arrest as well as grounds of arrest above of the petitioners to the relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the petitioners is concerned, it appears from the case diary that such notices under Section 48 of the BNSS were issued as per the information given by the petitioners to their relatives, friends or other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by them on 13.12.2024 itself. It also appears from the case diary that additionally the family members/friends/nominated persons, as the case may be, of the petitioners were also telephonically informed about the arrest of the petitioners in connection with this case. 21. One of such notice which was issued to the nominated person/friends of one of the petitioner is reproduced herein below:- “To, Shri Tia R/o Village- Taphou Naga, PO & PS- Senapati, Dist.- Senapati, Manipur-795106. Subject: Intimation of Arrest of Shri P. Soul, S/o- Phizu, R/o Village-Taphou Naga, PO & PS- Senapati, Dist. Senapati, Manipur-795106--reg This is to inform you that Shri P. Soul (DoB-05.09.2003), S/o Phizu, R/o Village- Taphou Naga, PO & PS- Senapati, Dist. Senapati, Manipur- 795106 has Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati for possessing/ carrying/ transporting/ dealing with orange powdery substances believed to be Heroin powder weighing 3180.830 grams. Shri P. Soul will be produced before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati on 14.12.2024. As desired by Shri P. Soul, the above fact of his arrest is hereby being known to you. Sd/- (Dicken Pegu) Sr. Intelliegence Officer” 22. If we peruse the aforesaid notice, it appears that it contains information regarding the date of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, P Soul in connection with seizure of heroin. It also contains information that the petitioner was arrested for possessing/ carrying/ transporting/ dealing with orange powdery substance believed to be heroin which was weighing about 3180.830 grams. If we peruse the aforesaid notice, it appears that it contains information regarding the date of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, P Soul in connection with seizure of heroin. It also contains information that the petitioner was arrested for possessing/ carrying/ transporting/ dealing with orange powdery substance believed to be heroin which was weighing about 3180.830 grams. Thus, though minimal information has been provided in the notice but it cannot be said that it is bereft of grounds of arrest as it clearly states the grounds for which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner i.e., possessing, carrying, transporting, dealing with 3180.830 grams of suspected heroin. Thus, this Court is of considered opinion that the aforesaid notice does disclose about the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioners in the case. 23. As regards the submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners  that the said notice was received by Shri Tia on 4 of January, 2025 and it was issued on 28.12.2024. It appears that apart from the oral submissions of the learned senior counsel regarding the date of the receipt, there is no material on the records which suggests the date when notices were received. Whereas from the endorsement made in the case diary, it appears that the notices were issued on 13.12.2024. 24. Another aspect of the matter is that though in the bail application the petitioners have squarely denied receipt of such notice by any of their relatives, friends or nominated person, however, during oral submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners have produced the photocopy of an envelope bearing the seal of speed post along with the photocopy of the notice to one Shri Tia wherein the grounds of arrest of the petitioner, namely, P. Soul has been stated. No additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners to bring the said document on record. He submits that from the endorsement “51/28.12.2024” appearing on the said envelop, it appears that the said notice was sent on 28.12.2024 only. However, as to what the endorsement “51/28.12.2024” made on the copy of the envelop of notice sent through the speed post means is not clear, as no affidavit clarifying the said facts has been filed by the petitioners. 25. However, as to what the endorsement “51/28.12.2024” made on the copy of the envelop of notice sent through the speed post means is not clear, as no affidavit clarifying the said facts has been filed by the petitioners. 25. It also appears from the case diary that the the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners are the resident of the state of Manipur and, therefore, the notices were sent through speed posts in which this Court finds no error. Though, there is a requirement of issuance of notice under Section 48 forthwith i.e., as soon as possible and in the instant case, it appears from the case diary that the notices were issued on 13.12.2024. However, there is no indication therein as to when the same were posted, the petitioners could have shown to this Court that the notices were posted belatedly by submitting the postal track consignment report of the consignment number which is available in the envelope of the speed posts by which notices were sent to their relatives, friends, nominated person, however, nothing of such sort has been done in this case. Apart from making mere oral submission that notices were received belatedly by the persons to whom such notices were addressed, and producing the photocopy of the envelop at the time of hearing, nothing could be produced before this Court to show that the notices were intentionally sent belatedly to deprive the petitioners of their constitutional rights. 26. Under such circumstances, as there is clear proof of issuance of notice to the relatives/ friends/ nominated persons of the petitioners in this case, this Court is of considered opinion that the procedural requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS has also been substantially complied with in this case and, therefore, the petitioners have failed to make out a case of non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(1), 47 and 48 of the BNSS. 27. The petitioners have failed to overcome the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 in this case hence, the prayer for bail is rejected and this bail application is accordingly dismissed. 28. Send back the case diary.