Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005372026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./69/2026 Sh. Kailash and Anr. S/o Mohan Ram, R/o Narsing Nagar, Chotiya Ki Dhania, Dhawa-I, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 2: Sh.Somra VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Monojit Biswas Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 25.08.2026 Heard Mr. Manojit Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. 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 in connection with Saitual PS Case No. 57/2026 under Section 18(b)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/4 3. An FIR was lodged alleging inter-alia that on 09.06.2026 an information was received from a reliable source that one vehicle, KIA Car B/R no. UP 32NZ 6396, driven by an unidentified person proceeding from Manipur towards Aizawl, was strongly suspected to be carrying illegal contrabands items. At around 11:00 AM, the said vehicle was intercepted and searched and upon thorough search, 71 packets containing Opium Fluid with a total weight of 45.871 kg was recovered from the car back trunk lining hole and both side of foot board hole. Accordingly, an FIR was registered as Saitual P.S case No.57/2026 u/s 18(b)/25/29 of ND&PS Act 1985. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 09.06.2026 and since then they have been in custody. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision of Section 48 of the BNSS has been violated in the present case inasmuch as no written communication of arrest was made to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the arrestee. 6. A perusal of the said notices under Section 48 of the BNSS reveals that the same has been acknowledged by the arrested petitioners themselves rather than by any relatives/ friends/ nominated persons. 7. It is also stated in the notice pertaining to the petitioner No. 1 that since his family members are residing outside the State and since they cannot come to the Saitual Police Station, the information of his arrest was conveyed to his brother Dinesh on his Telephone No. 6377403952. In respect of the petitioner No. 2, the same has been stated to be conveyed to his brother Hatram over his Telephone No. 8425072929. 8. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Appl. No. 20/2026, by its order dated 23.04.2026 has held as follows:- “12. The above being the position, I find that the requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS is not met in the process of arrest of the applicant. No materials has been produced before this Court that apart from the arrest intimation given to the applicant, a written arrest intimation was sent to his relative within or outside the State. In fact, in such a situation, if the relatives of the arrested person does not reside within the state or resides in a far flung district within the state, the Arresting Authority could very well send the intimation of arrest in writing to the relative concerned by post and also send a copy of the same to Page No.# 3/4 the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station concerned, where the relative resides for delivery to the relative. If such procedure was adopted, the case would have been different. As there are no indication that such written communication was made to the relatives in the language understood by them, this Court is of the view that the applicant will have to be released on bail……” 9. Further, by order dated 16.07.2026 in Bail Appl. No. 59/2026, it has been held as follows:- “13. In the instant case, it is seen that the notice purportedly issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, does not refer to whom it is addressed. However, from the second paragraph, it can be deduced that the information was given to the wife of the accused persons. It was further stated therein that since wives of the accused persons could not come down to the concerned Police Station, i.e., Saitual Police Station, the information about the arrest of their husbands, was given by way of a phone call. This procedure is also not contemplated under the law. It is required that if the relative of the accused person stays elsewhere or outside the State, the concerned Police Station, where the accused person is arrested should give the necessary information to the jurisdictional Police Station, where the relative stays and that the police personnel from the said jurisdictional Police Station should inform the said relative by serving the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, in writing.” 10. Admittedly, other than the aforesaid telephonic information alleged to have been conveyed, none of the other prescribed steps as stated above had been taken to cause service of the notice upon the relatives of the petitioners. 11. The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Bail Appl. No. 55/2026 relied upon by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor does not appear to be in conformity with the aforesaid decisions or what has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 as well as Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356, wherein written communication of the ground of arrest to the relatives etc. of the arrestee has been insisted upon. 12. 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 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. Page No.# 4/4 13. 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 the rate of the arrested accused person 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 Maharastra & Anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356. 14. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant