Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010031212026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./466/2026 SHRI ALI AHMED S/O- ABUL HUSSATN,R/O - VILL- BATAIYA BASTJP.O. - ERALIGOOL, DISTRICT - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN - 788723 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR W R MEDHI, MR A V SINGH,MR P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 06-05-2026 Heard Mr. W.R Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Borah, learned Standing counsel for the DRI/Prosecution Agency. 2. Invoking the provisions of Section 483 BNSS, the accused/petitioner, namely Ali Ahmed is seeking regular bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 147/2025 arising out DRI Case No. 22/CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25 u/s Page No.# 2/6 21(C)/22(C)/23(C)/25 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The said case after completion of investigation was charge-sheeted and presently stated to be at the stage of trial as NDPS Case No. 147 of 2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 5, (Kamrup) Guwahati. The petitioner was arrested on 17/12/2024 and presently in judicial custody. 4. The gist of the allegations is in the FIR is about recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances (methamphetamine) quantified at 12 kgs and estimated at market value of Rs.12 crores from an intercepted vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) bearing Registration No. AS01EN6552. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner side is that, notice under section 48 BNSS was not given to the family of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 6. It is further submitted that the implication against the petitioner is mainly on the basis of the statement of the petitioner made before the DRI officials and that the same would not have evidential value for the purpose of prosecution. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already suffered prolonged under trial detention and therefore, he can be granted bail, at this stage. 7. On the other hand, the Prosecuting Agency, the DRI, submitted and contended that the alleged offences are very serious in nature, constituting trafficking of illegal drugs in large quantities. It is submitted that the notice under section 48 BNSS was transmitted to the family of the accused at the time of his arrest. 8. It is submitted that there are sufficient materials otherwise to justify the application of section 37 of the Act and that considering the incriminating materials and the statutory bar, the bail may be rejected. 9. I have perused the relevant materials, considered the rival submissions and Page No.# 3/6 also perused the decision cited at the Bar. 10. Upon perusing the materials, I find that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 17/12/2024 after the initial search and seizure operation. The contraband in the form of methamphetamine is stated to have been seized from a concealed area in the roof of the vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) bearing Registration No. AS01EL6552 and the present petitioner was stated to have been driving the vehicle and another person was present. The statement of the petitioner recorded by the DRI is self-incriminating. Incriminating materials against him are also revealed from the statement of co-accused. The accused/petitioner has in fact admitted to his involvement in transporting of methamphetamine for greed of money though he claims that the real source of supply of the same are other persons/co-accused whom he has named, including one of his brothers. One of the primary contentions of the petitioner's side is that though there was compliance with the notice under section 47 BNSS, but there was no such compliance with regard to the notice under section 48 BNSS. 11. It is contended by the petitioner's side that the family members did not have knowledge about his detention in connection with this case. The DRI/Prosecuting Agency in their counter-objection apart from stating about the serious nature of the alleged offences and the application of section 37 of the Act--has also stated that at the time of arrest, sufficient details were enumerated in the arrest memo and that the factum of the arrest was also telephonically informed to the father of the accused/petitioner. It is contended that there is no infirmity in the statutory compliance and for this reason the bail should not be granted. 12. The notice under section 47 BNSS narrates the grounds of arrest in Page No.# 4/6 reasonable detail and satisfies the standard of the governing law. There is also no dispute regarding the same. The arrest memo also contains grounds of arrest and it also mentions as contended in the counter-objection that arrest has been intimated to his father over a phone. 13. From the scanned TCR, this Court could not locate a separate notice under section 48 BNSS about conveying of the grounds of arrest to the family member or nominated person of the arrested accused. 14. The law on the subject has sufficiently crystallized by now, though it has to be accepted that at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested on 17/12/2024--the governing law as it stands today was still emerging. Nevertheless, the law as it stands today upon being laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has to be applied to the facts of the case. In terms of the law laid down in the several decisions including the landmark decision in Vihaan Kumar -versus- State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the notice under section 48 BNSS is mandatory in the absence of which the arrest would be viated making further detention untenable. The same has been further clarified in Mihir Rajesh Shah -versus- State of Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 and other related decisions. The Prosecuting Agency has contended about the test of prejudice, referring to the decision in State of Karnataka -versus- Sri. Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 979. Both Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Darshan (supra) are rendered by Benches of equal strength (Coram 2). Therefore, in terms of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited -versus- Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the Division Bench of this Court in National Investigation Agency -versus- Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate, passed in Crl. A. No. 234/2025, the decision earlier in point of Page No.# 5/6 time would still hold the field. Thus, the principles laid down on the subject matter in Vihaan Kumar (supra) are still good law. 15. The grounds of arrest might be mentioned in sufficient delay in the arrest memo under section 35 of BNSS and it can be argued that it constitutes substantial compliance even if there is infirmity in the notices under section 47/48 BNSS. However, as already discussed, the strict compliance indicated by Vihaan Kumar (supra) rendered earlier in point of time still holds the field. Though, Darshan (supra) rendered later in point of time talks about substantial compliance also. 16. Looking at it from another point of view, if the arrest memo can substitute for a notice under section 47 or 48 BNSS, the legislature would not have made separate provisions for arrest memo, notice under section 47 BNSS and another notice under section 48 BNSS to be given to family member or nominated person. 17. In a particular situation due to exigencies, it may be required on the part of the I.O to intimate the arrest on phone to the family member of the arrestee. However, the matter should not end there and it should be followed up by preparing the notice under section 48 and given to the family member and the receipt acknowledged from them or refusal endorsed. These materials should also find place in the Case Diary. 18. In view of the governing law, the Investigating Officer has to go this extra mile in complying with this procedural formalities, which ultimately flow from the Constitution, as has been laid down in the case laws. 19. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the initial telephonic information given to the father, if accepted also on the basis of the arrest memo--is not followed up with any notice under section 48 BNSS. No such Page No.# 6/6 notice is also found in the record as already stated. Therefore, the arrest of the accused/petitioner on 17/12/2024 in this case pertaining to serious alleged offences suffers from one fatal infirmity, making the petitioner entitled to be granted bail on that ground. 20. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances and in view of the above discussion, I allow this bail petition and the accused person is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- lakh with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom has to be from the State of Assam - to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The following conditions are imposed:- (i) The accused person shall not abscond and he shall be available for the remaining trial; (ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (iii) He shall not commit any illegal activities or offences, including any offences under the NDPS Act, (iv) He shall not in any manner intimidate, harass or try to influence any witnesses. 21. Violation of the bail conditions would lead to cancellation of the bail. 22. The bail petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant