Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010277562025 2026:GAU-AS:745 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4038/2025 SUNIL KUMAR SON OF DEVI DUTTA,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BALDHAN KALAN,P.S. BALDHAN KALAN 98,DISTRICT - REWARI, DAHINA,HARYANA-123411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr B K Mahajan. Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr D P Goswami Date on which Order was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of Order : 20.01.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the Order? Page No.# 2/9 Whether the full Order has been : Yes pronounced? ORDER (ORAL) 20-01-2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional PP for the State of Assam. 2. This petition has been preferred under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioner who was arrested on 16.10.2025 in connection with Bazaricherra PS case no. 134/2025 under section 22(c)/25 of NDPS Act. 3. The concerned FIR records that during regular NAKA checking duty at around 10:50 am on 07.10.2025, a 12 wheeler open body truck bearing registration no. AS-01-EC-0528 was intercepted on NH-08. On checking the truck, some blanket bundles were unloaded and it revealed that a huge quantity of illegal and banned cough syrup were present in the truck which were concealed inside the electrical panel boxes. The truck along with the recovered illegal cough syrups were then brought back to the police station. 4. The truck driver was arrested and forwarded to the learned Magistrate on 08.10.2025 itself. The petitioner was thereafter arrested on 16.10.2025 and forwarded to the learned Remand Magistrate on the same day itself. Page No.# 3/9 5. The petitioner herein, who is serving at one of the warehouses of the Logistics Company which was saddled with the responsibility of carrying the electrical panel boxes, had been arrested on 16-10-2025 and produced before the Ld. Remand Magistrate on 16-10-2025. The petitioner has been in custody since then. 6. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the EITA Logisolutions Pvt. Ltd,. working in the warehouse at Lalungao, Gorchuk, Guwahati. He submits that it is an admitted position that the EITA Logisolutions Pvt. Ltd,. is a Logistic Company providing delivery services. He has submitted that the accused petitioner is an employee of the aforesaid Pvt. Ltd., and his day to day work includes receiving and forwarding the consignments as per pre-set orders and it is not the responsibility or duty of the accused petitioner to check the contents of the consignments. He submits that the consignments are received in sealed condition from original dispatch location and are forwarded through the warehouse and their rendezvous. He has submitted that the records would show that the consignments has been booked by Maa Vaishno Traders at Delhi on 19.09.2025, addressed to M/s Shyamal Kumar Bhowmik at Tripura, Agartala. In the description of the goods it was stated that the consignment was of 12 electrical penal boxes. After being booked, the same were sent from Delhi to Agartala and accordingly all the respective goods were loaded on the truck bearing registration no. AS-01-EC-0528. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter submitted that a perusal of the grounds of arrest given in the forwarding report of the present Page No.# 4/9 petitioner would reveal that the driver of the truck had stated that the seized consignment was loaded form the godown of the present petitioner and only on the basis of such linkage, the petitioner had been arrested. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the notice of information of grounds of arrest as required under Section 48 of the BNSS, would reveal that such notice was not served upon the nominated family member of the petitioner and in such view, the petitioner had suffered violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the notice aforesaid to impress upon this Court that although the said notice reflects that the same was sent by WT Message to the Officer-in-Charge of Baldhan Kalan (98) District Rewari, Haryana, there is nothing on record to show that the said notice had in fact been served upon any family member of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a settled position of law that when the Arresting Authority fails to inform the family of the arrested person regarding his arrest prior to his production before the learned Remand Magistrate, the same leads to the violation of the fundamental right of an arrested person. He has submitted that as per the settled position of law such violation would render the very arrest to be vitiated. He has, therefore, prayed that in the present case, the arrest of the petitioner having being vitiated, the petitioner deserves the privilege of bail. Page No.# 5/9 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had granted bail to employees of the warehouse of the logistic company which carried materials as described in the orders placed for consignment. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner was aware of the grounds of arrest as would be reflected in the forwarding report to the learned Remand Magistrate. He has submitted that the notice under Section 48 had been sent by WT message to the Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station, having jurisdiction over the permanent place of residence of the petitioner with a request to inform his family members. 13. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the contesting parties. 14. On 19.01.2026, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was afforded an opportunity to enquire from the Investigating/Arresting Authority as to whether a confirmation had been ascertained from the Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station, having jurisdiction over the permanent residence of hte petitioner. The matter was taken up today and no confirmation could be supplied to this Court. This Court notices that there is no official record to the effect that any steps had been taken by the arresting authority to ensure that after sending of the WT message, the family members of the petitioner had, in fact, been served with the notice as required under provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. This Court is of the view in the circumstances that the respondent/State has not been able to satisfy this Court that the notices under Page No.# 6/9 Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, had been served on the family/relative/friend of the petitioner, before his production in the Court of the learned Remand Magistrate or even at any point of time thereafter. 15. It has been held in the case of Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana & Another; reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, that the requirement of informing the friend/relative of the arrested person is mandatory requirement and the violation of the same would render the arrest and further detention to be in violation of the law. 16. In the case of Joynul Hussen @ Joynul Hussain ad Another (AB No. 683/2025), wherein in Paragraph-12, it has been held that- “12. In the said case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that- “If the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental Right to Liberty granted under Article 21 and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds to arrest as soo as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated ad once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.” 17. This Court is of the view that it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to have ensured that proper communication of the grounds of arrest Page No.# 7/9 of the petitioner were made to his family/relatives or friends. In the absence of the same, there has been a violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The continued detention of the petitioner is illegal once his Fundamental rights under the Constitution of India had been infringed. The petitioner therefore deserves to be enlarged on bail in the present facts and circumstances. 18. This Court notices that the petitioner has proclaimed himself to be a resident of a State which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Investigating authority and also of the Learned Court which would have the authority to take up the case of the petitioner for Trial, in case a charge sheet is submitted against him. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of releasing the petitioner on bail are required to be imposed to ensure his participation in the investigation and also to ensure that he appears before the Learned Trial Court as and when called upon in the event the petitioner is put up for trial. 19. This Court therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj, under the following conditions. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of investigating officer and/or the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Page No.# 8/9 Karimganj 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 (if not already surrendered) before the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj. 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 to the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating authority and/or Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj as and when required to do so; viii) Learned District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj shall be at Page No.# 9/9 liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the investigation. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The investigating authority 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. 20. The bail petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant