JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. Heard Mr. P.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the NCB. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Surjit Singh, who was arrested on 03.08.2024, in connection with NDPS Case no. 01/2025 arising out of NCB Guwahati Crime No. 08/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii) (c) of the NDPS Act, pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rangia, Assam. 3. The facts as revealed by the FIR is that on 02.08.2024 at around 8.35 p.m. a truck bearing registration number PB06AU9134 was seen coming from Tezpur side and the driver of the truck parked near a roadside dhaba and restaurant Barpalaha, Mangaldoi road, Kamrup there was only one person in the truck who was its driver, that is the present petitioner Surjit Singh, who upon being questioned gave his address and thereafter informing the petitioner about prior information regarding transportation of contraband received by the NCB, search was carried out on the said truck in the presence of witnesses and as revealed by the petitioner, a specially made cavity in the loading area just behind the truck was discovered in which packets of ganja had been concealed and the same was searched and 90 packets of ganja was recovered therefrom. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted on 29.01.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 28, 29, 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act and the case is at the stage of consideration of charge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the arrest of the petitioner on the ground that the investigating agency has violated the provisions of section 47 and 48 of BNSS while arresting the petitioner. A perusal of the notice under section 47 BNS says does not reveal any grounds of arrest mentioned therein. However as contended by learned Standing Counsel for the NCB, the said grounds of arrest has been duly reflected in the memorandum of arrest which has been signed by the petitioner. It is also stated in the memorandum of arrest as follows: “I have informed my son that is Zoban Preet Singh through my mobile phone on number 9044835808.” And the signature of the petitioner appears there under the aforesaid statement. 5. It is also stated in the memorandum of arrest as follows: “I have informed my son that is Zoban Preet Singh through my mobile phone on number 9044835808.” And the signature of the petitioner appears there under the aforesaid statement. 5. Furthermore, a perusal of the voluntary statement of the accused/petitioner and recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act on 03.08.2024, that is on the same date as the date of his arrest, which was recorded in the Hindi language and signed by the petitioner would clearly reveal that the petitioner was more than aware of the grounds of his arrest. 6. In view of the above, I find that the grounds of arrest have been duly communicated in writing to the accused/petitioner in a language which he clearly understood and therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of section 47 BNSS. 7. As far as compliance with section 48 is concerned, it is seen that the address of the petitioner is at Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner has also stated in his arrest memo that he has informed his son over mobile phone regarding his arrest. 8. The NCB had also sent a communication to the officer in charge of the concerned police station stating the grounds of arrest of the petitioner with a request to the addressee to intimate the family members of the petitioner. However, there is no record available as to whether the same was communicated, as requested, by the concerned officer in charge of the local police station. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 162 wherein it was held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the family members/friends/person nominated by the accused and failure to do so may render the arrest illegal. 10. In Amir Khan and Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 162 wherein it was held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the family members/friends/person nominated by the accused and failure to do so may render the arrest illegal. 10. In Amir Khan and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in GAHC 010132822025 this court had held that the decision in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) would operate prospectively by holding as follows: “It is the considered view of this Court that since it has been specifically stated in Pankaj Bansal (supra) that the requirement of furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused would only have prospective operation and as the subsequent judgment in Vihaan Kumar (supra) on the same issue did not mention otherwise, the additional requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the accused introduced therein would also have to be read in prospective terms, in the absence of any stipulation otherwise, in view of the fact that giving of retrospective operation in the later case with regard to the requirement of furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing to the accused person would nullify the effect of Pankanj Bansal (supra), wherein only prospective operation of such requirement has been stipulated. Furthermore, since the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the accused person has been made prospective, similar requirement in respect of furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated persons can hardly be held to be a requirement to be insisted upon retrospectively. From that point of view as well, it appears that it was not mandatory for the investigating agency to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated persons since the occurrence took place prior to the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra).” 11. The aforesaid decision was rendered on 07.02.2025, and the arrest of the petitioner took place long back on 03.08.2024 and therefore, the said decision does not aid the petitioner. Therefore, even if there has been any violation of section 48, the same would not render the arrest of the petitioner illegal for the reasons aforesaid. 12. The aforesaid decision was rendered on 07.02.2025, and the arrest of the petitioner took place long back on 03.08.2024 and therefore, the said decision does not aid the petitioner. Therefore, even if there has been any violation of section 48, the same would not render the arrest of the petitioner illegal for the reasons aforesaid. 12. In view of the above and the fact that a commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the conscious position of the petitioner, there is no reason to hold the view that the petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged offence and therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act also squarely applies in the present case. 13. In view of the, what has been discussed above, the prayer for bail stands rejected and the bail petition stands dismissed.