Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030002672026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./32/2026 Sadikul Hoque S/o Jamal Uddin R/o Singaria, Karimganj , Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl2:The Officer in Charge Anti- Narcotics Squad Excise and Narcotics Department Aizaw Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Hmingthanmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 14-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel Mr. C. Lalhruaitluanga for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Addl.P.P. Ms. Vanneihsiami for the State respondents. 2. This is an application under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 read with section 37 of the ND&PS Act praying for release of the accused/petitioner on bail pending trial. Page No.# 2/5 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 03.06.2025 in connection with the Excise Klb PS Case No.283/25 under section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act. Since then he has been in custody. The case has already been charge-sheeted and one witness has been examined out of 7 listed by the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had preferred a bail application before the learned Fast Track Court Kolasib vide Bail Appln 60/2025 which was rejected by order dated 05.12.2025 on the ground that the seizure involved commercial quantity of contraband and the case is at the initial stage of prosecution evidence and the evidence may be tampered with and the witness may be influenced if the accused is released on bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that another co- accused has already been granted bail by this Court by order dated 29.01.2026 in Bail Appln 59/2025. He submits that the petitioner in Bail Appln 59/2025 is similarly situated with the present petitioner and same grounds for bail has also been raised in Bail Appln 59/2025 which was allowed by this Court by releasing the petitioner on bail by order dated 29.01.2026. Being similarly situated, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant bail application may also be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail pending trial. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with by the arresting authorities inasmuch as the ground of arrest were not provided to the relatives of the petitioner. By relying on the case of Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Anr in Crl.Appeal reported in 2025 INSC 162; the learned counsel submits that the information or intimation about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The arrest memo incorporates the name of Page No.# 3/5 the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. However, mere information of arrest would not amount to furnishing ground of arrest. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits it is evident from the records that no ground of arrest has been furnished to the relatives or friend of the accused/petitioner. He therefore submits that in view of the violation of the provisions of section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and thereby non compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P. Ms. Vanneihsiami has produced the record and by relying on the Case Dairy has shown that the notice under section 47 BNSS has been duly complied with and his ground of arrest has been given to the accused/petitioner and duly acknowledged by him by appending his signature. The learned Addl. P.P has also drawn the attention of this court to the seizure and arrest memo wherein it is clearly reflected that intimation of seizure and arrest were given to the families through phone as the family of the accused person was in a different State. She therefore submits that the provisions of section 47 and 48 of the BNSS 2023, has duly been complied with. The learned Addl. P.P.also submits that the petitioner in Bail. Appln 59/2025 was not similarly situated with the present petitioner inasmuch as the provisions of section 47 of the BNSS 2023, was clearly not complied with in the case of the petitioner in Bail. Appln 59/2025 whereas the compliance has been shown in the instant case. The learned Addl.P.P also submits substantial compliance is sufficient on the part of the arresting authority and by intimating Page No.# 4/5 the wife of the accused petitioner, the provision of section 48 of the BNSS 2023, has also been complied with. 8. The Court has heard and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties and also perused the case records specially the Case Diary which is produced. 9. It is seen that the case is of commercial quantity of contraband and the accused was arrested on 03.06.2025 along with 5 others. It is seen from the Case Diary that the provision of section 47 of the BNSS 2023, has been complied with by the arresting authority inasmuch as the ground of arrest has been provided to the petitioner and the same has been acknowledged by the petitioner by appending his signature. However, this Court is of the view that except the intimation of arrest to the wife, no substantial compliance of section 48 of the BNSS 2023 has been made by the arresting authority. Section 48 of the BNSS 2023 is reproduced as under:- “48.Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to relative or friend- (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district. (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.” 10. As held in the case of Vihaan Kumar(supra), the intimation regarding arrest is different from the ground of arrest. The entry in the arrest and seizure Page No.# 5/5 memo only shows that the intimation/information of the arrest of the petitioner was made to the wife of the petitioner. There is no document to show that the grounds of arrest had been dispatched or sent to the wife of the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the requirement of section 48 of the BNSS 2023 has not been complied with by the arresting authority. Therefore the Court is not satisfied that effective compliance has been made with the requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the instant application is allowed. The petitioner is allowed to go on bail on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The accused/petitioner shall execute a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Fast Track Court Kolasib. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence nor directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat or promise to the witnesses. (iii) Petitioner/accused shall appear on each fixed date and face the trial without fail. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court without prior permission. The Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant