Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010053662026 2026:GAU-AS:7332 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./786/2026 RAMESWAR CHUHAN S/O SRI BINDALAL CHOUHAN R/O VILL- LAXMIPUR,P.S. MAIRWA, DIST. SIWAN, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, A SAHA,MS N SULTANA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 26.05.2026 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr.S.K.Nargis for the petitioner Rameswar Chauhan who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind Bars since 28.09.2025 in connection with Special NDPS Case No.76/2025 arising out of Rangapara GRPS Case No. 23/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. Page No.# 2/7 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr.R.J.Baruah is present for the State respondent 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 28.09.2025 and since then he has been languishing in jail. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to bail as Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with. The Annexure- 6 of the petition is a WT message forwarded to the petitioner's home address informing the petitioner's family members that he was arrested in connection with this case as 37.304 kgs of suspected ganja was recovered from his possession and sufficient evidence was found against him. It is submitted that the petitioner was travelling by train when the Ganja was recovered. The coach number is not mentioned nor is the berth number. It cannot be held that the ganja was found in his possession. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Sahid Ahmed Muzumdar & anr vs The State of Assam in connection with Bail Application No. 3121/2025 wherein vide order dated 31.10.2025, it has been observed that: “ In view of the fact that it is required under the law under Section 48 BNSS that the said information to the said relatives has to be communicated. It is further observed in the said Judgment Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person but also to friends, relatives, or other persons is required so as to make mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful. Since the communication to the parents of the petitioner is not revealed from the said notice under Section 48 BNSS, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner may be released on bail, since violation thereof vitiates the arrest, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with 1 local surety of like amount to the satisfaction Page No.# 3/7 of the Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai under the following conditions:-.............” 6. The petitioner has relied also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Sharukh Ali Elias Sharuk Ali and anr. wherein vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in Bail Application No.3085/2025, it has been observed as follows: “16. In the instant case, the question to be determined now is to as to what was communicated to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners in the notice which was purported to be notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. It is also relevant as to by what mode same was communicated and what are the materials on record to indicate that the communication to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners was in fact made by the arresting authority. 17. On perusal of the scanned copy of the record of NDPS Case No. 70/2025, which was requisitioned in connection with this case, it appears that the W.T. Messages were sent to the Officer-in-Charge of concerned Police Stations to intimate the relatives/family members of the petitioners regarding their arrest in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 551/2025 under Sections 21(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. No further details were stated in the said W.T. Messages regarding the accusation made against the petitioners in the above-mentioned case, nor any basic facts which necessitated the arrest have been stated in the said W.T. Messages. 18. After considering the materials on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that by merely sending the said W.T. Messages, without stating therein the grounds of arrest of the petitioners, the arresting authorities have not complied with the mandate of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Further, there is no material on record which would indicate that in pursuant to the said W.T. Message the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners were in fact intimated about the grounds of arrest of the present petitioners. As the Page No.# 4/7 requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest, in writing, to the relatives/friends/nominated persons is a constitutional mandate touching upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners, same may not be allowed to be diluted in any manner by the arresting authorities by taking plea that there has been substantial compliance of the aforesaid Page No.# 9/10 statutory and constitutional mandate. 19. Thus, in view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the arresting authorities have failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the friends/relatives/nominated persons of the petitioners and on that count alone, due to violation of mandatory constitutional requirement, the arrest of the petitioners have become illegal and for the said reasons, the petitioners are entitled to get bail. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Jarina Begum vs the State of Assam, wherein vide Order dated 25.02.2026, it has been observed as follows:- “ 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.” ****** ***** ***** ****** ***** ***** Page No.# 5/7 ****** ***** ***** “ 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.” 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted a certified copy of the notice under section 47 of the BNSS and has stressed that the signature of the petitioner is not affixed in the notice. 9. Per contra, learned Additional P.P has submitted that the petitioner is from Bihar and immediately after his arrest, a WT message was sent and it is not true that the WT message was addressed to the petitioner as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The WT message consists of the address of the petitioner as the names of his relatives are not known to the investigating agency. The scanned copy of the trial court records consists of the notices under section 47 of the BNSS and the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner in detail and the petitioner's signature has been taken in the notice under section 47 of the BNSS. The certified copy submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is only a part of the notice. The notice is in two pages and the second page of the copy of the notice under section 47 of the BNSS was not annexed to the petition. Notice under Section 36 of the BNSS is in the record which clearly reveals that signatures of the accused, the investigating officer and the witnesses have been taken in the arrest memo. 10. The WT Message clearly reveals that grounds of arrest have been communicated to the family members of the petitioner. It is also apparent that the grounds of arrest were also communicated through e-mail as it appears from Annexure- 6 of the petition through the officer-in-charge of Mairwa, district Page No.# 6/7 Siwan, Bihar. This is a peculiar case where the family members reside in a faraway place in Bihar and the petitioner was apprehended by the Rangapara GRPS. The scanned copy of the trial court records and the scanned copy of the Case Dairy also reveals that the grounds of arrests were communicated to the petitioner in detail in two pages to the petitioner. 11. However, in this case at hand, although notice was sent through WT message to the address of the petitioner, there is no document of serving the notice to the family members of the petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, it is held that there has to be an affirmation that notice was served on any of the family members of the petitioner. This is not so in this case at hand. There is no acceptance of notice by any of the family members of the petitioner nor service of the same. It is true that this case is under a serious offence and the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act act an embargo to the prayer for bail, but in the instant case there is no affirmation of service of notice to any of the family members of the petitioner. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), it appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner. 12. Thereby the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac only) with 02(two) local sureties, one being a Govt. Surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial as and when required, Page No.# 7/7 ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission and iii) The petitioner shall refrain from such activities of which he is alleged; 13. On breach of any of the above conditions, learned trial court is at liberty to cancel bail granted to the petitioner. 14. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant