Page No.# 1/10 GAHC030004762026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./60/2026 Sh. Md. Saif Uddin @ Abu Saleh Md. Saif Uddin S/o Abdul Fattah R/o Defalala, P.S- Patharkandi, District- Karimganj, Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:Union of Indi Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Azad Ahmed Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior Counsel and Special PP, NCB, assisted by Mr. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 praying for enlargement of the applicant on bail in connection with NDPS case number 65/ 2025 arising out of NCB case number 5 of 2023 registered under section 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS Act 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 20.11.2025 in connection with the aforesaid case, and since then he has been languishing in jail. The present case arises out of the seizure of 2.804 kilograms of heroin and 14.082 kilograms of methamphetamine from a Mahindra Bolero pickup bearing registration number TR-05-C-1813 at the outskirts of Dulte Village, Khawzawl District, Mizoram on 23-72024. The petitioner has rested his prayer for bail mainly on the grounds that his production before the learned remand magistrate was after 24 hrs of his arrest, and that the information relating to his arrest had not been conveyed to his relatives, namely his wife and his cousin and brother-in-law, in a manner acceptable in law. The petitioner has further relied on the assertion that the mandates of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are satisfied in the present case to entitle him to bail. Facts : 3. The contraband was allegedly recovered from the possession of Mohammad Iman Hussain, Ripon Hossain and Niranjan Karmakar, who were Page No.# 3/10 arrested on 24-72024 in connection with Special Narcotics Police Station case number 31/2024. The investigation was thereafter transferred to the Narcotics Control Bureau, Agartala, since it was suspected that there was involvement of an interstate and international drug trafficking network operating between Myanmar, Mizoram and Tripura. 4. Having found evidence indicating the involvement of the petitioner in offences under the ND&PS Act, the NCB Agartala issued three notices under Section 67 of the ND&PS Act to the petitioner; however, he did not respond to the same. The final notice was served on the petitioner on 20.11.2025 at the Guwahati Railway Station, and the petitioner appeared at the designated address before the authorized officer of NCB, Agartala, at Guwahati. He was thereafter placed under arrest at about 10:50 pm on the same day. The petitioner has not denied the service of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 upon him in two languages, namely English and Bengali. He has admitted that he had talked to his cousin and brother-in-law at about 11:00 pm on 20.11.2025 over the telephone and that he intimated him about his arrest. The wife of the petitioner had been informed about his arrest by the petitioner himself by placing a call to her mobile. Records reveal that a copy of the notice intimating the grounds of arrest, carrying the signatures of the petitioner, was also served on her at 2:57 and 2:58 pm on 21.11.2026, through the WhatsApp number provided by the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21.11.2025 at about 5:00 pm, whereupon the prayer for transit remand was accepted, and directions were issued to produce the petitioner before the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, on or before 4:00 pm on 24.11.2026. The petitioner was produced before the designated Court on 22.01.2025, and since then he has languished in Page No.# 4/10 custody. 5. The petitioner had been granted default bail by the order dated 10.06.2026, since the supplementary chargesheet filed on 16.03.202 after the arrest of the petitioner was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge; however, the said default bail was recalled on 11.06.2026, when the fact of submission of the supplementary chargesheet was brought to notice. 6. A bail application filed thereafter before the learned Judge, ND&PS Court was rejected on 19.06.2026. The petitioner is now before this Court praying for bail. Submissions on behalf of the parties: 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed an error while recording that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He has submitted that mere transmission of grounds of arrest through WhatsApp or Speed Post, without proving that the complete grounds of the arrest were actually served upon the wife of the applicant, could not satisfy the statutory and legal requirements under Section 48, BNSS, 2023. He has submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of statements of the co-accused and on the basis of his own alleged confession, and in the absence of recovery of any contraband from the petitioner, there is reasonable probability of the petitioner being acquitted. He has also submitted that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner would indulge in similar activities if released on bail. He has accordingly prayed for grant of privilege of bail to the petitioner for the remainder of the Trial. 8. The learned SPP has submitted that the petitioner has been found to be involved in three other offences of similar nature, the details of which are Page No.# 5/10 enumerated in the objection filed in these proceedings. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner would not again indulge in similar offences if he is set at liberty on bail. He has submitted that the evidence against the petitioner does not stop at the statements of the co-accused and his own confessional statement but is also based on analysis of the Call Detail Records of the co- accused from whom the contraband had been recovered and also financial transaction links established during the investigation. He submits that therefore the likelihood of the petitioner being acquitted is also far-fetched at this stage. The learned counsel has referred to the orders passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), to assert that there is no infraction of the requirements of law during the arrest of the petitioner, and therefore, the prayer for bail does not require any further consideration of this Court. CONCLUSIONS 9. I have heard the counsels for the contesting parties, and I have perused the records. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the contesting parties in support of their submissions. 10. At first glance, I notice that the petitioner is also accused in at least three other proceedings, namely Badarpur PS Case no 169/2024, Bazaricherra PS Case No. 194/2024 and Excise and Narcotics Case No. 210/2024, apart from the present case. It also appears from the office note that the petitioner had earlier moved BA No. 13/2024 in connection with EX-N 189/2023 and BA No. 40/2026 in Excise Case No. N-201/2024 before this Court. The existence of the aforesaid cases, where the petitioner stands as an accused, coupled with the fact that there is no mention of the aforesaid cases in the present bail petition filed by the petitioner, lends support to the assertion of the respondents that no presumption can be formed that the petitioner may not indulge or involve Page No.# 6/10 himself in similar activities in the event he is released on bail. The existence of call detail records, which have also been elaborated by the respondents in their records, with the co-accused who were intercepted with contraband, and the records of financial transactions of the petitioner, do not convince this Court that there is a fair likelihood of his acquittal. In ordinary course, the above would have been grounds enough for rejection of the prayer for bail by the petitioner. 11. However, the petitioner has pleaded violation of his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and, in view of the settled position in law that such violations, if found to be substantiated, would override the mandates of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, the mode and manner of the arrest of the petitioner is taken up for scrutiny. 12. The petitioner has not made any assertion that he had not been able to understand the grounds of arrest as supplied to him. Records reveal that the arresting authority had taken caution and served the grounds to him in writing, both in English and in Bengali, and he has not denied that the grounds were also explained to him in Hindi. The requisites of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, in the present case have been substantially complied with, and there is no quarrel made by the petitioner on the same. 13. The records reveal that the petitioner had talked to his cousin and brother-in-law at about 11:00 pm on 20.11.2025 over the phone, regarding his arrest and the grounds therefore, after his arrest at 10:50 pm. The petitioner had thereafter signed the intimation under Section 48, BNSS on the same date, and records reveal that the notice had been sent to his wife on her WhatsApp at the number provided by the petitioner at 2:47 pm and 2:48 pm on 21.11.2025. The petitioner was produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) at 5:00 pm on 21.11.2025. There is no assertion in the bail petition that the WhatsApp Page No.# 7/10 message sent to the wife of the petitioner was not delivered; rather, the screenshots provide evidence that the messages had been delivered. The intended recipient, i.e. the wife of the petitioner, has not stated before this Court that she did not receive the messages or that she failed to understand the contents thereof, regarding the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. 14. In Rashid Hoque vs The Union of India (BA No. 3157/2025, disposed of on 28.01.2026), relied upon by the petitioner, this Court, in the Principal Seat, had noticed that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS had not been served prior to production of the accused before the Magistrate and, though shown to be served later, the same was not in a language understood by the father of the arrestee therein. Such are not the facts in the present case, which have been elaborated above, and therefore, the reliance placed does not aid the petitioner. 15. The petitioner had thereafter relied on the judgment and order dated 12.08.2026 passed in BA No. 1239/2026, where the Division Bench, at the Principal Seat, had answered the consequences of non-compliance of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 in the following words: 37. Avoiding all prolixity, we thus answer the reference as follows: (i) Section 36 of the BNSS is mandatory, and the Police Officers effecting arrest are bound to follow all safeguards diligently; (ii) Failure in complying with the procedural safeguards would constitute a violation of a statutory provision dealing with the liberty of an individual, which may attract appropriate legal consequences; (iii) However, such failure by itself and in isolation does not automatically render the arrest void ab initio or non est; (iv) The Court examining the legality of arrest ought to consider the totality of Page No.# 8/10 the circumstances, including – (a) whether the arrest was otherwise authorized by law; (b) whether grounds of arrest were communicated; (c) whether the relatives or friends were informed, as required; (d) whether the arrestee was produced before the Magistrate within prescribed time; and (e) whether prejudice or abuse has resulted from such omission in framing the arrest memo. 16. No arguments were raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the violation of the provisions of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 and in the opinion of this Court, the reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench was not called for. Moreover, on an examination of the totality of the circumstances of the arrest, I do not find illegality in the arrest of the petitioner. 17. The petitioner thereafter relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh and ors, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1228, to impress that when an arrestee pleads before a Court that the grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove compliance with Article 22(1) is on the police authorities. There is no quarrel on the said proposition of law. In the present case, the delivery of the grounds of arrest to the wife of the petitioner through WhatsApp is a matter evident on record. In the opinion of this Court, no further discussion on the issue is called for. 18. The petitioner has thereafter relied on order dated 30.04.2021, passed in BA No. 126/2021, where, after being satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners may ultimately be acquitted of the offences under Section 22(C)/29 of the ND&PS Act, and that there were no Page No.# 9/10 cogent materials to indicate that in the event of enlargement on bail, the petitioners therein would commit any offence under the ND&PS Act, the Court had granted bail to the petitioners therein. I have already recorded my contrasting opinion in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, and therefore, the reliance on the orders passed in BA no 126/2021 is misplaced, insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 19. The petitioner has then placed reliance on the orders dated 12.12.2025, 18.08.2026 and 27.08.2026, passed in BA No. 3202/2025, BA No. 1283/2026 and BA No. 1637/2026 respectively, to impress that when the detention of a arrested person exceeds 24 hrs without being produced before the learned Remand Magistrate, the detention after the initial 24 hrs becomes illegal, rendering the arrested person to be set at liberty forthwith. The petitioner was recorded to have been arrested at 10:50 pm on 20.11.2025, and he was produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) at 5:00 pm on 21.11.2025. There being no assertion to the contrary by the petitioner, there is no manner in which the orders referred to hereinabove could come to the aid of the petitioner. 20. A final reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment and order dated 23.07.2026 passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs Sonam Raghuvanshi (SLP (Crl.) No. 11944 of 2026) where at paragraph 11, it was held that non-furnishing of grounds of arrest may vitiate the arrest itself. In my considered opinion, the judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner, since in the present case, there is enough material to indicate that the grounds of arrest had been supplied to the petitioner. There is also enough material to indicate that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 had been served upon the wife of the petitioner. The bail petition does not contain any assertion that the wife of the petitioner was put to a disadvantage Page No.# 10/10 in defending the petitioner due to inadequacy, if any, in the notice served on her WhatsApp number. 21. As a result, I do not find that the petitioner has been made to suffer any disadvantage during his arrest or that there is any illegality in the arrest of the petitioner. The ingredients for this Court to be satisfied that the requirements of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are absent. Consequently, the prayer for bail is rejected. 22. Bail Application accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant