Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010150412026 2026:GAU-AS:11974 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2055/2026 MUBASHIR SAHADAT ALIAS MOBOSHRI SAHADAT S/O SAIDUR RAHMAN, R/O VILL CHALCHALI, SHIMALUGURI, P.S. NAGAON, DISTRICT NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, R MALI,MS SURAYA RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS,MR A W AMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Mubashir Sahadat @ Moboshri Sahadat, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 28.06.2026, in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No.490/2026 under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Biman Gogoi, S.I. of Police, Nagaon P.S., on 27.06.2026. The essence of allegation, in the FIR, dated 27.06.2026, is that acting on a tip off, they had apprehended the accused and recovered from his possession 54 nos. of bottles of Triprolidine Hydrochloride & Codeine Phosphate Cough Syrup, 13 strips of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride & Acetaminophen capsules (each strip containing 24 capsules) and another 11 strips of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride & Acetaminophen capsules (each strip containing 8 capsules) in his E-Rickshaw. 4. Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the accused, submits that he is not pursuing this application on merit, but for non-compliance of the provision of Section 48 BNSS, 2023. Taking this Court to the notice issued to the relative of the accused under Section 48 of BNSS, he submits that in the said notice, the I.O. has not clearly mentioned the facts of the case and also the grounds of arrest and as such, prejudice is caused to the accused and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has opposed the petition. Producing the case diary before this Court, Mr. Borthakur submits that the I.O. has mentioned the grounds and complied with the provision of Section 48 BNSS substantially and as such, no case for granting bail on this count is made out and accordingly, it is contended to dismiss the petition. He also submits that the offence is serious involving commercial quantity of contraband substances. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court Page No.# 3/4 has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary as well as the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS. 7. It appears that the I.O. has mentioned the grounds of arrest in the said notice, which are extracted herein below:- "1) If he is released on bail, there is a complete possibility of him destroying the evidence or influencing the witnesses and thereby hampering the investigation. 2) Considering the gravity of the offence and strict punishment under the N.D.P.S. Act, there is sufficient possibility of him evading the process of law and concealing himself or absconding. 3) Since this offence is connected with narcotic drugs and it carries a great threat to public health and security of society at large, it is imperative to take stringent legal action against him." 8. It is to be noted here that Section 48 BNSS obligates the I.O. to forthwith inform any relative, friend or nominated person about the arrest and the place where the accused person is being held and this Section correspondence to old Section 50A Cr.P.C. In the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 and in the case of Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere intimation of arrest or listing of penal sections is not enough. The grounds must convey sufficient basic facts/particulars of the accusation in a language the accused understands, preferably in writing, so the accused can effectively consult a lawyer and challenge the arrest/remand and failure to comply with the same violates Article 22(1) and the same vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand and the same may be a ground for releasing the accused on bail. 9. In the instant case, going by the grounds of arrest, this Court fails to derive satisfaction that the grounds/facts of arrest, the gist of allegation, quantity detail of Page No.# 4/4 the contraband substances in the case has been mentioned in the grounds of arrest. And as such, it cannot be said that the provision of Section 48 BNSS is effectively complied with, which cause prejudice to the accused. And in that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to allow this application. 10. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Nagaon, the accused, namely, Mubashir Sahadat @ Moboshri Sahadat, shall be enlarged on bail. The learned Special Judge will be at liberty to impose any condition so as to secure his presence during trial. 11. In terms of above, the bail application stands disposed of. 12. Case diary be returned. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE