Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030004722026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./58/2026 Sh. Jabrul Hoque S/o Siraj Uddin, R/o Balidior, Nilambzar, PO-Asalkandi,District-Sribhumi, Assam- 788723 VERSUS Union of India R/b the Narcotic Control Bureau (Agartala Zonal Unit) Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Manojit Biswas Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 24-09-2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. K. Lalrinsangi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 109/2026 corresponding to NCB Agartala, Zonal Unit Crime No. 12/2025, registered under Section 8(c) to be R/W Section 22(c)/25/29 and 35 of Page No.# 2/6 the NDPS Act. The petitioner had been arrested on 03.02.2026, while he was in judicial custody in connection with NCB Crime no. 14/2025. Though not stated in the bail petition, this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the petitioner had also been placed under arrest in connection with NCB Crime no 07/2025 on 30.1.2026, in connection with which he has preferred BA no 65/2026. Records reveal that an application had been preferred by the Investigating Officer in NCB Agartala Zonal Crime No. 12/2025 before the Ld. Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl on 30.1.2026 with a prayer for custodial interrogation of the present petitioner, who was already in custody after his arrest on 3.12.2025 in connection with NCB Crime no 14/2025. The prayer was allowed by the learned Judge of the Special Court on the same day. The petitioner was interrogated in the presence of a Court-appointed Counsel on 3rd February 2026. He was then placed under arrest in connection with NCB Crime no 12/2025 on the same day, and he was allowed to inform his wife over the telephone regarding his arrest. The petitioner had also been provided with the grounds of arrest, which were also acknowledged by him on the same day. On 4.2.2026, the arresting authority filed an application before the learned Special Court, Aizawl, praying for production of the accused and also praying for allowing the petitioner to be shown arrested in connection with NCB Crime Case No. 12/2025. The prayers were allowed on the same day, by allowing the petitioner to be shown arrested and directing his production on 5/2/2026. On his production, he was remanded to judicial custody by issuing a custody warrant against the petitioner. 3. Mr. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that it is an admitted position that no notice under section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 Page No.# 3/6 had been prepared or despatched to any person nominated by the petitioner on the date of his arrest. In fact, in the written objection filed by the arresting authority, it has asserted that the telephonic conversation with the wife of the petitioner, intimating his arrest, would suffice the requirements of law. He has submitted that in the case of Vihaan Kumar Versus State Of Haryana & Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, the Apex Court had held that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to his relatives, family or friend is not merely a formality to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. He has submitted that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. He has submitted that the law has been clarified, as recently on 21.9.2026 by the Apex Court in Jaskaran Jeet Singh Deol Versus State of Punjab {Criminal Appeal No. 4234 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11103 of 2026), Decided On: 21-09-2026}, reported as 2026 INSC 1022, where the Apex Court held that when a Court notices an infraction of fundamental rights in the arrest of a person, the illegal arrest and detention is required to be interfered with. He has submitted that the proposition that when an accused is released for violation of his fundamental rights under Article 22 (1), he is not enlarged on bail, but he is released from illegal and unconstitutional detention, has been settled in a plethora of Page No.# 4/6 judgments. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner would be entitled to be released from illegal detention, if necessary, by granting him bail. 6. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior Counsel, has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner, who had been supplied with the grounds of his arrest, had informed his wife about his arrest over the telephone. He, however, submits that there is no documentary evidence available in the records made available to him to show that notice under Section 48 BNSS had been actually dispatched. He prays that, in view of the substantial compliance of notice to the wife of the petitioner, the present application may be rejected. 7. I have perused the records placed before me, and I have also considered the submissions made. There is no quarrel at the bar that the wife of the petitioner had been contacted by the petitioner over the telephone after his arrest, and it has come on record that the communication of the grounds of arrest of the petitioner in writing had not been conveyed to any of the relatives of the petitioner. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) had held that communication of the grounds of arrest to the friend/relative/family of the arrested person is to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner was undoubtedly in judicial custody when he was arrested. There being no record to show that Page No.# 5/6 the written notices under section 48 of the BNSS had been served upon any person nominated by the petitioner, this Court has to hold that the petitioner suffered an infraction of his rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to be released on bail. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is a permanent resident of a locality beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Mizoram or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Learned Trial Court, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar, subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior written permission; (ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (v) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when directed to do so, without fail; (vi) The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation Page No.# 6/6 of the petitioner in the trial. (vii) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of a similar nature in the future. (viii) The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request a recall/cancellation of bail. 10. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant