Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114252026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1501/2026 JAHIDUL ISLAM BHUYAN AND ANR SON OF LATE ABDUR RAHIM BHUYAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUJARPITH, P.S. HOWLY, DISTRICT BARPETA, ASSAM. 2: ABDUL KADIR SON OF LATE SUNAHAR ALI RESIDENT OF BRAHMAN SACHAN PART-II P.S. NILAM BAZAR DISTRICT SRIBHUMI KARIMGANJ ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the petitioners, who were arrested on 23.04.2026 in connection with Harangajao P.S. Case No. 10/2026 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 49/2026), registered under Sections 22(c)/ and 29(1) NDPS Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the arrest of the petitioners, the family, friends, and the relatives have not been served upon the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and therefore, coupled with the fact that the arrest memo of the petitioners do not reveal the address of the alleged witnesses to the arrest and detention of the petitioners, the same had become illegal and the petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail. The petitioners were arrested on 23.04.2026 in connection with Harangajao P.S. Case No. 10/2026 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 49/2026), registered under Sections 22(c)/ and 29(1) NDPS Act with the recovery of 1350 bottles of cough syrup (Codeine). 4. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is a settled position in law that violation in the arrest memo would not be, in itself, sufficient to entitle the petitioners with the privilege of bail. Addressing the allegation of non service of the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, the learned APP has submitted that initially the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and the brother of the petitioner No. 1 had been informed through WhatsApp and WT messages have been sent to the concerned Police Station within the jurisdiction of the residences of the petitioners to inform the family or friend or relatives of the petitioners. 5. The documents produced by the learned APP shows that the notice Page No.# 3/4 under Section 48 of the BNSS were served through the WhatsApp on the mother of the petitioner No. 2 and she appeared at the Police Station to meet her son on 24.04.2026. The learned APP has submitted that the WT message sent on 23.04.2026 to Sribhumi, Karimganj and she had also been informed through the WhatsApp sent through the cousin brother of the petitioner No. 2 herein. The mother of the petitioner No. 2 had already left for Harangajao to meet her son and on the arrival at the Police Station, the notice under Section 48 BNSS have been served upon the mother of the petitioner No. 1. 6. The learned APP has further submitted that the cousin brother petitioner No. 1 thereafter arrived on 27.04.2026 and received the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS. The cousin brother has already been informed through WhatsApp 0n 23.04.2026. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when the intimation of the arrest have been given to the family of the petitioners at the time of their arrest, and further due to the circumstances already explained by the learned APP, the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS served upon the family members, friends and relatives, upon their arrival from transit, I do not find that there is any violation in the arrest memo on the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS to the extent that the petitioners would become entitled to the privilege of bail. Therefore the grant of bail on the ground of violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS coupled with the absence of the address of the witness in the arrest memo is rejected. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the certified copies made available to the petitioners did not contain the endorsement, now shown before this Court, on the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS and such endorsement been made available only during the pendency of the bail Page No.# 4/4 petition in order to have the petition rejected. 9. The matter shall be placed before the concerned Superintendent of Police, Dimahasao to cause an enquiry to find out any violation/ manipulating and in the event any violation/ manipulation is found, appropriate action would be initiated thereafter. 10. The bail application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant