Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010025722026 2026:GAU-AS:6739 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./436/2026 MATIAR RAHAMAN MOLLA S/O LATE ATIYAR RAHAMAN MOLLA VILL- UTTAR BHUMSHORE , P.O. BAMSOR, P.S. BHATAR, DIST. BARDHAMAN, WEST BENGAL- 713125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, M RAHMAN,MR N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel N.J. Dutta for the petitioner Matiar Rahaman Molla, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 04.12.2025 in connection with Bongaigaon GRPS No. 176/2025 under Section Page No.# 2/5 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The FIR unfolds that on 04.12.2025 at about 9.15 AM, when Train No. 12514 Chariapalli Weekly SF Express (SCL-CHZ) DN, had arrived at Platform No. 1, the Investigating Team conducted a routine inspection on the rear General Coach. One passenger exhibited suspicious behaviour. The individual who attempted to flee was promptly apprehended by the Investigating Team. The team disembarked from the train along with the apprehended person, who disclosed his identity as Matiar Rahaman Molla. During investigation, he admitted carrying two packets of suspected psychotropic substances (Morphine) with transparent tape concealed inside his multicoloured jumbo bag. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Parashar for the respondent State has raised objection, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage as the petitioner is indicted in a serious offence. The contraband found in the bag is described as Morphine, weighing 1.286 kgs. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress in his argument that the arrest memo marked as Annexure-3 series at page-23 reveals that the arrest memo has not been signed by the Investigating Officer, which is in contravention to the provisions of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023. 5. Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 is reflected hereinbelow:- “36. Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest.-Every police officer while making an arrest shall- (a) bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification; (b) prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be- Page No.# 3/5 (i) attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made; (ii) countersigned by the person arrested; and (c) inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has a right to have a relative or a friend or any other person named by him to be informed of his arrest.” 6. It is further submitted that notices were issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 through WT message but there is no acknowledgement relating to receipt of the notice by the petitioner’s wife or any of his family members. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hemkholal Mate Versus The National Investigation Agency in connection with Crl.A./433/2025 wherein vide order dated 25.03.2026 it has been held that :- “3. The records reveals not a solitary lapse, but a continued defects; absence of a duly signed arrest memo in terms of section 41B, Cr.P.C, lack of contemporaneous material suggesting denial of the accused persons to sign such arrest memo, lack of demonstrable communication of the grounds of arrest as mandated by law and explicated in Vihan Kumar, non-compliance with section 50A Cr.P.C, and a failure to adhere even to judicial directions requiring supply of materials to defence. 4. Such safeguards are not ornamental. They are integral to the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21; their dilution transforms the process of arrest from a regulated act to an assertion of authority.” 8. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Investigation Agency Versus Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate in connection with Crl.A./234/2025 wherein vide order dated 21.08.2025 it has Page No.# 4/5 been held that :- “17. We have perused the records that have been brought by the appellant. Though, there is signature in the photocopy of the Arrest Memo of the accused/respondent, which the appellant say, is the signature of the brother of the accused, we find that there is no date affixed to the said signature. On the other hand, all the other signatures in the Arrest Memo, which have been signed by the witnesses, the Arrestee and the Officer making the arrest, all have dates. There is nothing to prove that the grounds of arrest had been received by the brother of the accused respondent on 20.05.2025. In that view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the brother of the appellant had been given a copy of the Arrest Memo on 20/05/2025 is not proved and the said submission does not inspire our confidence. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the appellant in their written objection to the Bail Application filed before the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam, had specifically taken a stand that the grounds of arrest of the accused/respondent had been given to the father of the accused/respondent. This stand has, however, been completely changed in the present appeal, which has been filed only on 02/06/2025.” 9. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Annexure-3 series at page-22-23, which are the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS and the arrest memo under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, respectively. The Investigating Officer has indeed not affixed his signature on the arrest memo. Although notice was issued to the wife of the petitioner through WT message, there is no information of service of notice to the petitioner’s relative or any acknowledgment, supporting that any of the petitioner’s family members has received the notice. Thus, the petitioner’s right to personal liberty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, has been curtailed. 10. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Page No.# 5/5 (supra) and the decision of this Court in Hemkholal Mate (supra) and Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate (supra), this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to bail. 11. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, under the conditions that :- (i) the petitioner shall cooperate with the trial, (ii) the petitioner shall not jump the bail, (iii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which he is alleged. 12. On breach of any of the conditions, the Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 13. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant