Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010000482026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./76/2026 CHINGKHEINGANBA MEITEI AND ANR SON OF- NGANGOM SHYAMBABU MEITEI, RESIDENT OF VILL.- UYUMPOK, P.O.- PANGEI, P.S.- SAGOLMANG, DISTRICT- IMPHAL EAST, MANIPUR. PIN-795114. 2: YUMKHAIBAM BABUCHOUBA ALIAS YUMKHAIBAM DAVIDSON SINGH SON OF- Y. SUBASH SINGH RESIDENT OF VILL.- UYUMPOK P.O.- PANGEI P.S.- SAGOLMANG DISTRICT- IMPHAL EAST MANIPUR. PIN795114 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 2/5 Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the DRI. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS praying for bail to the petitioner in connection with Departmental Case No. 04/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024- 25 dated 23.11.2024 under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 which has culminated in N.D.P.S. Case No. 42/2025 pending before the Learned Court of District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners were taken into custody on 23.11.2024 and have been languishing in custody till today. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the arrest of the petitioners have been in violation of the provisions of Section 36, 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and therefore, the continued custody of the petitioners are in violation of the constitutional rights under Article 21(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has submitted that the arrest memo of the petitioners does not contain the signature of any independent witness or the family and relative of the petitioners. Further, the notice under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS were also not served upon the petitioners and his family/relative/friend respectively and therefore, there is a complete violation of the mandatory provision of law. 4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the DRI has submitted that the grounds of arrest were explained and recorded in clear terms in the arrest memo and the copies of the arrest memo has been communicated to their next of kin as reflected in the memo of arrest itself. The learned counsel has further submitted that the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police in Manipur had also been intimated, about the arrest of the petitioners, with the request to him to inform the family members of the petitioners. He has submitted that there is Page No.# 3/5 substantial compliance of the provisions and therefore, the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage. 5. The learned counsel for the DRI has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court pronounced on 06.01.2026 in WP(Crl.) No. 50/2025 to assert that when the memorandum of arrest is served upon the arrested person and the petitioner is allowed to intimate their relatives over mobile phone, there is substantial compliance of the provisions of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when there is no notice under Section 47 of the BNSS given to the petitioner and when it is not the case of the respondents that the notice under Section 48 of the CrPC had been furnished to the family members/relative or friend of the petitioners, the findings of this Court in WP(Crl.) No. 50/2025 could not be relevant to the present case. 6. This Court has gone through the scan copy of the TCR and the arguments made at the bar. This Court has noticed that there is no record to show that the notice under Section 48 of the CrPC had been served upon the family/friend or relative of the arrested person of the petitioners and there is only a record of sending information to the Superintendent of Police by speed post on 23.11.2024. Ironically, the proof of sending it by speed post has not been produced before this Court. Although it may be correct that the petitioners had informed about the arrest of the wife and father respectively, the same cannot be held to be compliance provisions under Section 48 of the BNSS. The arrest memo does not contain the signatures of any independent witness. This Court, in view of the aforesaid violation that the constitutional rights of the petitioner has been violated in the present case. 7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Page No.# 4/5 However, the petitioners have proclaimed themselves to be residents of a locality beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of releasing the petitioners on bail are required to be imposed to ensure participation in the Trial Court. This court therefore directs that the petitioners be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) each with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the State Government or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar under the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar 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. iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any and if not already surrendered before the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof Page No.# 5/5 to the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar. The Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar as and when required to do so and in case of default, the Learned TRail Court shall be at liberty to form such opinion, including an opinion that the petitioner is trying to delay or escape the trial and on forming such opinion, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner; viii) the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar 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. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The prosecution shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 8. The bail petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant