Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020003642026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./9/2026 SMTI DOURAILA @ BABY ROSE D/O KALUBA, P.O. MARAM BAZAAR, P.S. MAO - MARAM, DISTRICT - SENAPATI, MANIPUR - 795015 (THROUGH THE JAILOR DISTRICT JAIL, KOHIMA - 797001, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : M ANYEI, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. M. Anyei Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Thiba Phom, P.P Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of : No the Operative part of the judgment ? Whether full judgment has been : Yes pronounced ? Page No.# 2/8 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 02.06.2026 The instant application under section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 read with section 37 of the NDPS Act has been filed praying for release of the accused namely Smti. Douraila@Baby Rose on bail in connection with Special case No.06/2026 arising out of Narcotic PS Case No.03/2026 U/s 27A/28/29 NDPS Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M. Anyei assisted by Mr. Osbert Khaling and Ms. Suiti TH. Also heard Mr. Thiba Phom, learned P.P. for the State respondents. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that on 19.03.2026 a suo moto FIR was registered on 18.03.2026 and one co-accused Rocky was arrested. Thereafter, upon preliminary interrogation the co-accused stated that he had sold 2 consignment of suspected drugs to an individual namely, Halba. In this connection, the co-accused also stated before the investigating agency that he had ordered 50 (fifty) soap cases of contraband drugs from the present petitioner who had supplied and delivered to him on 18.03.2026 at 5th Mile Highway Roadside, Dimapur after a cash payment of Rs.10 Lakhs. He had stated that he had ordered 50 soap cases and therefore paid for 50 soap cases however, he got only 32 soap cases and therefore he had returned the 32 soap cases containing the contraband items to the petitioner and the petitioner told him that she will bring the 50 soap cases and deliver on 19.03.2026. However, he was apprehended on the night of 18.03.2026. Page No.# 3/8 4. Basing on the statement of the co-accused Rocky, the petitioner was arrested on 20.03.2026 at 0830 hours. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that mandatory provisions of law had been violated when the petitioner was arrested. It is the case of the petitioner that ground of arrest were not explained to her at the time of arrest as the petitioner can understand only Manipuri and she cannot read or understand English or nagamese. However, in the ground of arrest, it can be clearly seen that the language and dialect in which she was informed about the grounds of arrest was not mentioned. 6. Another ground which the petitioner has taken is that section 48 of the BNSS has also been violated inasmuch as the family member or friend of the accused person has not been intimated about the arrest. In the format regarding information about the arrest to the relative, it is seen that the elder sister of the accused has been telephonically informed about the arrest however the said format does not reflect the signature or acknowledgment of the relative and there is nothing on record to show that the same has been sent to the relative or friend. 7. The other ground which the petitioner has taken is that the provisions of section 36 of the BNSS mandates that the memo of arrest should be 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 and countersigned. However, perusal of the arrest memo in the instant case shows that the two witnesses are both Police personnel from the Narcotics PS and there is no witness who is a Page No.# 4/8 family member of the accused person or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest was made. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Vihan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 to support his submission that the communication of the ground of arrest must be made effectively in the language the arrestee understands in order to fulfil the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is the submission of the learned counsel that non fulfilment of this essential requirement vitiates the arrest and renders the proceedings illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs State(NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 wherein similar principles have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In view of the above submissions and the provisions of law and the precedent as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the application may be allowed and the petitioner may be released on bail. 10. Learned P.P. Mr. Thiba Phom makes a submission basing on the Case Diary. He has taken the Court to the entries made in the Case Diary wherein it has been specifically recorded that the co-accused had implicated the present petitioner in clear and unambiguous terms by stating that he had ordered the contraband from the present petitioner/accused. He has therefore submitted that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner for transporting and dealing with contraband Page No.# 5/8 substance which was of commercial quantity and therefore the twin conditions as laid down in section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be considered by this Court. 11. The learned P.P also submits that the ground of arrest has been duly furnished to the petitioner. The sister of the petitioner has also been informed about the arrest in compliance to the requirement of section 48 of the BNSS. He submits that two witnesses who had attested the arrest memo are responsible Police Officers. The learned P.P. therefore submits that all the mandatory provisions of law have been complied with and the case being one pertaining to transportation and dealing in commercial quantity of contraband substance, this Court may not allow the bail application. 12. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the opposing parties and has also perused the Case Diary produced by the learned P.P. 13. Upon going through the Case Diary as well as the documents annexed by the petitioner, this Court has observed that in the arrest memo, the two witnesses who have attested the same are Police personnel from the Narcotic PS Kohima. Besides, these two Police personnel, there is no witness who is a family member of the arrested accused or no respectable member of the locality where the arrest was made and thereby, the provision of section 36 of the BNSS have been violated. It is clear that there is a mandate provided by section 36 of the BNSS that the arrest memo has to be signed by witness either as a family member of the arrested person or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest was made. Section 62 of the Page No.# 6/8 BNSS further provides that no arrest shall be made except in accordance with the provisions of the BNSS or any other law for the time being in force providing for arrest. 14. Regarding the grounds of arrest, the format shows that the grounds of arrest has been properly set out and written in English and at paragraph 3 of the grounds of arrest, it is stated that the ar- rested person has been informed of the grounds in a language known and understood by her. However, the grounds of arrest for- mat does not show in which language or dialect the arrested person has been informed. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that she does not read/write or understand Nagamese and hence, she has only given her thumb impression in the notice regarding grounds of arrest. It is not seen anywhere in the grounds of arrest that the petitioner/accused had been informed about the grounds in the language which she understood. It is also not reflected any- where in the case Diary that such grounds have been explained to her, in a language understood by her. Therefore, it cannot be said that grounds of arrest have been explained to the accused person in a language understood by her. 15. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (Supra) is that the accused requires to be properly informed of the grounds of arrest so that he is clear about why his liberty has been curtailed. It is also necessary to enable him to prepare his defense and the importance of compliance with Arti- cle 22 of the Constitution of India rests on a higher pedestal than the statutory restrictions of bail. 16. With regard to the information of arrest to relative/friend un- der Section 48 of the BNSS, the information shows that the elder Page No.# 7/8 sister of the accused had been informed telephonically about the ar- rest. However, there is nothing on record to show that the same had been sent to the relative/friend either through post or through other means. There is also no acknowledgement by the relative/friend in the said document. 17. In view of the observations made above, this Court is of the view that there has been a violation of the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS and also Section 36 of the BNSS. When viola- tions of Article 21 and 22 are established it will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act therefore does not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. 18. For the reasons aforementioned, the accused person, Smti. Douraila@Baby Rose is allowed to go on bail under the following conditions: (i) Execution of bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one surety of like amount who shall be a local resident of Kohima, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. (ii) The accused shall cooperate with the investigating agency and shall appear before the IO of the case once a week till the investigation is completed. (iii) The accused shall not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and shall not leave the ju- risdiction of the Trial Court without permission. (iv) The accused shall provide two phone numbers to the I.O. on which she can be contacted at all times. Page No.# 8/8 19. With the above directions, the instant petition stands dis- posed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant