Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010034582026 2026:GAU-AS:2836 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./541/2026 JERINA BEGUM W/O MAMTUL ALI R/O UDIANA, BALAGAON, P.S. RANGIA DIST. KAMRUP VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,S NAZNIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 25.02.2026 Heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned counsel for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Page No.# 2/7 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS)  2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused applicant in connection with Rangia P.S. Case No. 278/2025, registered under Sections 17(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by one WSI Jitumoni Rabha of Rangia Police Station inter alia alleging that on 13.11.2025, credible information was received that a large consignment of narcotic substances had been brought from Manipur by Aitul Ali and his brother, Mamtul Ali @ Mantul Ali. Acting on the said information, a raid was conducted at their residence, and it is alleged that 86 kilograms of opium were recovered. Upon arrival of the police, the said Aitul Ali and Mamtul Ali allegedly fled. Jarina Begum, the accused applicant herein, who is the wife of Mamtul Ali and certain other persons at the premises were apprehended. A sum of Rs. 25,25,400/- was also allegedly recovered. On the basis of the said allegations, the present case was registered. 4. On receipt of the FIR, the police registered Rangia P.S. Case No. 278/2025 under the aforementioned sections. 5. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the accused is a woman and a housewife, having no criminal antecedents, and has been implicated solely on the basis of her marital relationship with the co-accused, namely Mamtul Ali, and due to a long-standing enmity arising out of a land dispute with neighboring persons who are rival parties to the accused applicant’s family. The rival neighbors, having a history of civil disputes over land, have deliberately involved the accused applicant in order to exert pressure upon the absconding male members of the family. It is further submitted that the accused applicant was arrested on 14.12.2025 from her matrimonial house in connection with the instant case and was produced before the learned Special Page No.# 3/7 Judge, Rangia on the same day with a prayer for 10 days police remand. The learned Special Judge, Rangia, however, allowed only 3 days police remand. Subsequently, the accused applicant moved a bail application before the learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Rangia, but the same was rejected vide order dated 03.01.2026 without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the accused applicant was arrested merely on suspicion. 6. The learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the FIR itself reveals that the main accused persons, Aitul Ali and Mamtul Ali @Mantul Ali, had absconded prior to the raid. No specific overt act has been attributed to the accused applicant in the FIR. The contraband was allegedly recovered from the premises of the matrimonial house of the accused applicant. Mere presence at the matrimonial home does not attract criminal liability under any law unless active and conscious involvement is established beyond reasonable doubt. The accused applicant has been falsely implicated, and the alleged recovery is not from her conscious or constructive possession, as mere presence of contraband in a house cannot, by itself, establish culpability. He further submits that the FIR does not attribute any specific act to her, nor does it mention any independent witness, documentary, electronic, or financial evidence linking her to the alleged offence. She was produced before the court without compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, causing prejudice to her rights. He submits that Section 47 of BNSS Notice does not contain her signature. The accused applicant has been in judicial custody since her arrest, has a young daughter aged about five years, and has no involvement in the alleged offence. In view of these facts, she has become a victim of a conspiracy, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted Page No.# 4/7 7. Learned counsel for the accused applicant has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: In Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2025) 9 SCC 745, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that failure to furnish the grounds of arrest within a reasonable time vitiates the arrest. In the present case, neither the time of service of notice nor the time of production before the learned Magistrate is properly reflected, thereby violating Articles 22(1) and 22(2) of the Constitution of India. Further, the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, allegedly served upon one Wasif Saikia, Gaon Burah of the village does not disclose any ground implicating the accused applicant. The constitutional safeguards relating to arrest and personal liberty have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State, reported in (2023) 7 SCC 412; Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 289, and the aforesaid Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) case. 8. It is submitted that a co-accused, Jahir Islam, has already been granted bail in B.A. No. 414/2026 on the ground of non-compliance with Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Bail has also been granted in similar matters, namely B.A. No. 3796/2025 (Manju Devi vs. UOI) and B.A. No. 2594/2025 (Pankaj Kumar vs. UOI). Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS is non est in law and prays that the accused applicant be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. It is further submitted that the accused applicant is suffering from a kidney stone requiring surgery and constant medical care, which he cannot receive in judicial custody. The medical documents are annexed as Annexure-F to the application. Page No.# 5/7 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the accused is allegedly involved in the recovery of 86 kgs of opium and cash of Rs. 25,25,400/-, indicating the gravity of the offence. Granting bail at this stage may hamper investigation, allow tampering with evidence, or enable the accused to influence witnesses. Learned Addl. P.P. also submits that notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which mandates that a person arrested must be informed immediately of the grounds of arrest and of the right to bail where the offence is bailable, but this provision does not confer an absolute right to bail in serious and non-bailable offences and does not curtail the Court’s discretion to refuse bail where investigation is ongoing or the prosecution demonstrates real risk of interference with the proceedings; he, therefore, opposes the bail application. 10. On perusal of the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, it is seen though the Grounds of Arrest and other details are available, no signature of the arrested person, i.e., the signature of the Accused Applicant is not available in the Notice. This fact prima facie indicates that no Notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 was served or issued to the Accused Applicant while arresting him. There is no material found in record to show that the Notice was given to him on a later stage too. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of cases, including the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) has held that the non-service of Notice under Section 47 BNSS, 2023 to the arrestee is violative of the mandates of provisions of Section 47 BNSS which makes the arrest illegal and thereby, providing an indefeasable right to bail to the arrested person. 11. Though Section 37 of the NDPS Act provides for certain conditions to be fulfilled before granting bail to an arrested person in case of seizure of commercial quantity, the same will be applicable only when the arrest is itself Page No.# 6/7 not illegal. However, if any arrest is made in violation of the mandatory provisions as laid down in the BNSS, 2023, then the same goes to the root of the matter and the initial arrest itself becomes illegal. 12. The fundamental rights are paramount under the Constitution of India. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Personal liberty, thus, is a sacred and cherished right under the Constitution of India. Article 22 of the Constitution of India further strengthens the protection of personal liberty of a person by providing that the person arrested must be informed of the grounds of his arrest at the earliest and should not be detained without informing him of such grounds. 13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not be applicable in a case wherein the initial arrest itself is rendered illegal due to violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is a violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 in the instant case while arresting the accused applicant whereby curtailing the fundamental rights of the Accused Applicant guaranteed under Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India without following the due legal process. 14. Having found prima facie violation in the arrest of the accused applicant in service of Notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, this Court does not feel any requirement to examine the merits of the argument of the learned counsel for the accused applicant about Section 48 Notice of BNSS, 2023. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, this Court directs that the accused applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. Page No.# 7/7 50,000/ (Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the accused applicant shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when required; (ii) that the accused applicant 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 Investigating Officer; (iii) that the accused applicant shall provide his contact details including photocopies of their Aadhar Card or PAN card as well as, mobile numbers, and other contact details before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia; (iv) that the accused applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, without prior permission of the said Court and when such leave is granted by the said Court, the accused applicant shall submit his addresses and contact details during such leave before the said Court; and (v) that the accused applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16. In view of the aforesaid directions, this bail application stands disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant