Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010010272026 2026:GAU-AS:2727 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./259/2026 TONGMINLUN LUPHENG AND ANR SON OF SEIJAPAO LUPHENG, R/O VILL- THANGKANGPHAL, P.O. SAIKUL, P.S. SAIKUL, DIST. SENAPATI, MANIPUR- 795118 2: THANGGUNSEM HAOKIP S/O HAOKHOLET HAOKIP R/O VILL- K. MONGJANG P.O. KUMBIPUKHRI P.S. CHURACHANDPUR DIST. CHURACHANDPUR MANIPUR- 795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ( DRI). Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, SC, DRI,MR. S C KEYAL Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 23.02.2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused-applicants in connection with NDPS Case No.95/2025, corresponding to DRI Case No. 16/CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25, registered under Sections21(c)/22(c)/23(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending trial before learned Additional Session Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on receipt of specific information, the officials of the DRI, Guwahati, apprehended one Renault Captur Car bearing Registration No. AS-01-DQ-4569, carrying substantial quantity of psychotropic drugs coming from Meghalaya side to Guwahati. The aforesaid vehicle was intercepted by the team of DRI officials near Khanapara Flyover, Kamrup (M) at about 19:00 hrs. On search of the vehicle, the DRI officials recovered 6(six) Kgs of Methamphetmine Tablets from the aforesaid car where both the accused-applicants were travelling. Accordingly, the DRI registered the case as DRI Case No. 16/ CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25, under the aforesaid Sections. The accused-applicants were arrested on 18.10.2024 and since then they are languishing behind the bar. 4. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that there is a total violation of Section 48 of BNSS, 2023, while arresting the accused-applicants by the DRI officials, which goes to the root of the process of arrest of the accused- applicants violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the mandates of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He submits that the accused-applicants were not served with the notices under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023. He submits that though the Arrest Page No.# 3/6 Memo mentioned about intimating the wives of the accused-applicants by a telephonic call, the same cannot be termed as a notice under Section 48 of BNSS. He submits that by not serving proper notices under Section 48 of the BNSS, there is a clear violation of the ratios as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana & Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 as well as other cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that communication of Grounds of Arrest to the relatives of the accused-applicants are mandatory in nature, if not complied with, the same is a ground for granting bail to an arrested person. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants submits that this is a fit case wherein the accused- applicants should be granted bail due to violation of Section 48 of BNSS and being not in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases including the aforesaid case of Vihaan Kumar (supra). In support of his submission, the learned counsel has referred to couple of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, upholding the same principle. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, DRI, submits that the Arrest Memo clearly reveals that telephonic calls were made to the wives of the accused-applicants and the same have been acknowledged by the accused-applicants by putting their signatures in the Arrest Memos. Therefore, he submits that there is substantive compliance of the mandates of Section 48 of BNSS and therefore, there is no violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In this connection, he has referred to the case of Md. Farish Vs. Union of India, (W.P.(Crl.)/50/2025) decided on 06.01.2026 by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. He submits that in the aforesaid case also, intimation to the wife of the arrested person was made by a telephonic call and the same was found to be in compliance with Section 50A of the Cr.P.C. (Section 48 BNSS). In view of the aforesaid, he submits that in the instant case also, there is no violation of the mandates of Section 48 of BNSS. Therefore, he opposes Page No.# 4/6 the prayer for bail of the accused-applicants in the instant case. 6. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the Trial Court Records of the instant case produced before this court. 7. On perusal of the trial court records, it is seen that though notices under Section 47 were given to the accused-applicants at the time of their arrest by the DRI officials, no notices under Section 48 of BNSS sent to any of the relatives of the accused-applicants could be found. However, it is noticed that in the Arrest Memos relating to the accused- applicants, there are respective statements to the following effect: - “He has been duly apprised of the grounds of his arrest and his arrest has been intimated to his wife over phone.” There is no material on record about notice under Section 48 of BNSS except the statement contained in the Arrest Memo. No material is available to indicate to whom such phone calls were made or the names of the wives to whom the calls were made or the phone numbers on which the calls were made. There is no documentation separately prepared and acknowledged by the accused-applicants about the fact of intimating the wives of the accused-applicants at the time of their arrest, neither at the time of their arrest nor at a later stage. Therefore, it is apparent that though there is a statement of intimating the wives of the accused-applicants about the arrest of the accused-applicants, no such documentary evidence could be found in the TCR. 8. The contention made by the learned counsel appearing for the DRI that the case of Md Farish (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case, cannot be accepted, as factually both the cases are different. In the case of Md Farish (Supra), there was an acknowledgement, duly signed by the arrested person, namely, Md Farish, to the effect that Md Farish gave intimation of his arrest to his wife, namely, Yasmeen on her mobile phone 8014438084 at about 8.45 p.m. on 29.10.2023. A document to the effect was Page No.# 5/6 specifically made which was signed by the investigating officer as well as the arrested person. The document contained the name of the wife as well as the phone number on which the arrested person had himself called his wife. However, in the instant case, neither any such document was created nor any information about the names of the wives of the accused-applicants or their phone numbers could be found. 9. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the facts of the case of Md Farish (supra) being distinguishable from the instant case, the same is not applicable. 10. Having come to the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is an apparent violation of the mandates of Section 48 BNSS, which had not been complied with by the DRI officials while arresting the accused-applicants. Therefore, the non-compliance of Section 48 BNSS goes to the root of the process of arrest of the accused-applicants and the same violates the rights guaranteed by the Article 21 and 22(1) of the constitution of India. 11. On consideration of the whole matter available before this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the violation provides right for bail to the accused-applicants in the instant case. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicants, namely, Tongminlun Lupheng and Thanggunsem Haokip , shall be allowed to go on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Session Judge, No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused-applicants shall appear before the Trial Court as and when required; (ii) that the accused-applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court; Page No.# 6/6 (iii) that the accused-applicants shall provide their contact details including photocopies of Aadhar Cards or Driving Licenses or PAN cards as well as, mobile numbers, and other contact details before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M); (iv) that the accused-applicants shall not commit any offence while on bail. 12. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Bail Application stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant