Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030005182026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./65/2026 Sh. Jabrul Hoque S/o Siraj Uddin, R/o Balidior, Nilambazar, 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 (Ld. Special PP) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22-09-2026 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. 38/2026 corresponding to NCB Agartala, Zonal Unit Crime No. 07/2025, registered under Section 8(c) to be R/W Section 21(b)/22(c)/25 and Page No.# 2/6 29 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had been arrested on 30.1.2026, while he was in judicial custody in connection with NCB Crime no. 14/2025. 3. Mr. Biswas, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the notice purportedly issued to the father of the petitioner under section of the 48 of the BNSS did not satisfy the requirements of law, as it did not reveal sufficient grounds or information regarding the place of arrest or the place where the petitioner has been kept in custody. The learned counsel has submitted that the records would reveal that the petitioner had been allowed a telephone call to his wife at the time of his arrest; however, the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS had been issued to the father of the petitioner, without any indication that the petitioner had nominated his father as the person to be informed. 4. He has further submitted that the father of the petitioner had denied receipt of the aforesaid notice under Section 48 of the BNSS and therefore, unless the arresting authority could provide sufficient proof of delivery of the notice, this Court would have to presume that the petitioner had suffered an infraction of his rights guaranteed under the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 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 an infraction of fundamental rights is noticed by a Court 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 Page No.# 3/6 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 judgments. 5. He has submitted that in the present case, it is a matter of record that the petitioner had been allowed to contact his wife through the mobile phone of the arresting officer; however, the notice prepared under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was shown addressed to the father of the petitioner, without any documentary evidence to show that the notice had either been despatched to the father of the arrested person or that the same had been delivered to him. 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 the detenue, and in addition 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 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. Page No.# 4/6 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 the notice under Section 48 BNSS, addressed to the father of the petitioner, 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, and the prayer for production and shown arrest of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate had been filed on 31.1.2026, after he had been arrested on 30.1.2026. There being no record to show that the written notices under section 48 of the BNSS had been served upon the person nominated by the petitioner, this Court has to hold that the Page No.# 5/6 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 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. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant