Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030005642026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./71/2026 Sh. Atabur Rahman Mazumder and Anr. S/o Muzamil Ali Mazumder, Village- Matijuri Basadahar part-II, P.S. and District- Hailakandi, Assam 2: Sh Abdur Rahman Choudhur VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. M. Barbhuiya Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 18.08.2026 Heard Mr.B. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for regular bail to the accused/petitioners who were arrested on 20.11.2025 in connection with Special Narcotic Police Station Case No. 37/2025 under Section 22(c)/25/29(1) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 for the interest of justice. Page No.# 2/5 3. Brief of the case is that on 20.11.2025, a police team from Special Narcotic Police Station CID (Crime), Aizawl intercepted one Tata Truck bearing Registration No. AS-01/FC-7586 at Tawngtai Mual, Berawlui, Aizawl, which was being driven by the petitioner No. 1, Atabur Rahman Mazumder, while the handyman of the truck was the petitioner No. 2, Abdul Motlib Choudhury. 49.244 kgs of suspected methamphetamine was recovered from the said vehicle. Both of them were inside the vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been violation of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS. It is submitted that although the notice under Section 47 contains the grounds of arrest, the same is undated. As far as compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS is concerned, it is submitted that no such notice was issued to the relatives/friends/nominated person of the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in the case record, one document was available which has been mentioned as “Arrest Intimation under Section 47 of BNSS”, but from the said document, it appears that the family members of the petitioners were intimated over phone. It is also submitted that the case has been investigated and the charge sheet has been submitted, and charges have also been framed against the petitioners. Thus, at this stage, the petitioners may not be released on bail. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also pointed to the Order dated 01.04.2026 of the learned Judge of the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl in Bail Appln No. 109/2026, whereby the prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected, and while doing so, it was recorded that the grounds of arrest and arrest intimation were duly furnished to the accused/petitioners and their family members in their own language. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further referred to an Order dated 10.07.2026 in Bail Appln No. 55/2026. In the said case, the Court had observed that information of the arrest of the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner was given to his wife on the mobile phone provided by the petitioner, and in the arrest intimation that was prepared, it is stated that since the wife of the petitioner could not make it to the place of occurrence, intimation was given to her by mobile phone, which was acknowledged by the petitioner by placing his signature. It was also noted that the petitioner himself had not disputed that information had been given to his wife regarding his arrest by excise personnel in connection with the registered case, acknowledging the same in the arrest intimation letter. Accordingly, the contention of the petitioner regarding the illegality of the arrest due to non-compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS was rejected. 8. However, a perusal of the aforesaid Arrest Intimation under Section 47 of the BNSS in the present case shows that what is stated therein is that the persons named therein, i.e., the present petitioners, were arrested in connection with Special Narcotic Police Station Case No. 37/2025 dated 21.11.2025 under Section 22(c)/25/29(1), and that arrest intimation was given to his/her relative as mentioned against his/her/their names, countersigned by the arrested person. No grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the aforesaid document, which is submitted to be under Section 47 of the BNSS, but according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is actually the document showing compliance with Section 48 of the BNSS. It is stated in the said document that intimation was given to one Ratna Begum, wife of petitioner No. 1, on her mobile phone, and to the mother of petitioner No. 2, also on her mobile phone, and the signatures of the accused/petitioners were also obtained on the same document. 9. It is well settled that what is required to be communicated to the relative/friends/nominated person are the grounds of arrest and not merely the fact of arrest, which are two completely different things. In no way can it be discerned from the aforesaid document that the grounds of arrest were also communicated over mobile phone to the relative/friend/nominated person of the petitioners. Merely Page No.# 4/5 because the signatures of the accused persons/petitioners appear on the said document does not show that such grounds were communicated. The necessity of communicating the grounds of arrest to the relative/friends/nominated person of the arrestee in writing has been laid down in no uncertain terms in Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269. While there may be exceptional circumstances where it was not possible to comply with the above requirement in letter and spirit, no such exceptional circumstance has been brought out by the prosecution in the instant case. Although the addresses of the petitioners are outside the state, i.e., in Hailakandi, Assam, there is nothing on record to show that any WT message containing the grounds of arrest was sent to the jurisdictional Police Station for service upon the family members of the petitioners, nor is there any such communication in any other form. Therefore, the learned Court below clearly erred in satisfying itself that the arrest intimation was duly furnished to the family members of the accused in their own language, as no such material is discernible from the record. 10. The decision of the learned co-ordinate bench in Bail Application No. 55/2026 can be distinguished on facts, even without expressing agreement or otherwise with the said decision. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, and in light of the law laid down in Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana (Supra), the arrest stands vitiated, which entitles them to bail. Consequently, it is directed that the petitioners, namely, Atabur Rahman Mazumder and Abdur Rahman Choudhury, shall be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court in connection with the aforesaid case. 12. It is further provided that in the event of such release, it shall be open for the Investigating Officer to move an application for remand or custody along with reasons and necessity for the same after supplying the grounds of arrest in writing, setting forth the explanation for non-supply thereof within Page No.# 5/5 the stipulated timeline. On receipt of such application, the Magistrate shall decide the same expeditiously and preferably within a week of submission thereof by adhering to the principles of natural justice, as laid down in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in (2025) INSC 1288. 13. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant