Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010010362026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./229/2026 RENNEITHANG ALIES RN THANGBOY R/O MISAO LHAHVOM, P.O. P.S. CHURACHANDPUR, DIST.- CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR, PIN-795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NCB Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, POOJA ROY,L DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 24.03.2026 Heard Mr. M Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. D. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the N.C.B. This is an application by which the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with N.C.B. Guwahati Crime No. 04/2025 corresponding to N.D.P.S Case No. 95/2025 registered under Section 22(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/3 This is the second bail application filed by the petitioner, the earlier being registered on 22.08.2025. The new ground that has been raised by the petitioner in the instant case is that Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with. Although a reference was made about Section 48 of BNSS in the earlier order dated 22.08.2025 but the same has not been gone in details and as such the petitioner has taken it as new ground in the instant petition. Mr. M. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, it is a mandatory requirement that the relatives of the arrested person has to be informed rather communicated about the arrest of the accused person as well as other details which according to the learned Counsel has not been done with. He further submits that although a notice under Section 48 of the BNSS has been said to have been sent to the wife of the petitioner but the same does not reflect as to whether the wife of the petitioner has received it or not. However, he submits that the wife of the accused person has not received the same. He further submits that the requirement as provided under Section 48 of the BNSS that the place of detention has to be informed to the relative of the accused person has also not been complied with in the instant case in as much as the notice does not reflect the place of detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prays for bail for non-compliance of the aforesaid requirements. Mr. R.K. D. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the N.C.B. on the other hand submits that the issue pertaining to notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has been dealt with in the earlier order and the same cannot be new ground and the new bail application does not lie. He further submits that notices under both the Section 47 BNSS and 48 BNSS has been sent to the petitioner as well as his relatives and further he submits that the required particulars in as much Page No.# 3/3 as in which case he was arrested at what place he was apprehended for the first time and that he will be produced before the learned Jurisdictional Court are all mentioned in the said notice. As such he submits that no bail may be granted to the petitioner. Upon consideration of the submissions made at the bar more so on the mandatory requirement that the notice under Section 48 of BNSS has to be served upon the relative of the accused person, the service of which is not discernible from the records of the case and also due to the fact that place of detention is not mentioned in the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Cachar under the following conditions: i) The petitioner would appear before the learned Court as and when called for. ii) The petitioner will not influence the witnesses who are connected with the case. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant