Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010013712026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./280/2026 PRADIP DEB NATH ALIAS PRADIP DEBNATH S/O LATE SUBAL DEBNATH R/O VILL- MAHARANIPUIR, P.S. TALIAMARA, DIST. KHOWAI, TRIPURA. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MISS. P M AHMED,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 25.02.2026 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail to the accused/applicant in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.49/2025 arising out of Patherkandi PS Case No.176/2025 registered under Page No.# 2/4 Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The gist of the prosecution case, as narrated in the FIR lodged by WSI Gayatri Phukan of Patherkandi Police Station on 22.07.2024 before the Officer- in-Charge of Patherkandi Police Station, is that on the same day at about 4:12 PM, information was received to the effect that three persons were transporting ganja near Baraigram Railway Station. Acting upon the said information, the informant along with police staff proceeded to Baraigram Railway Station and reached there at about 4:40 PM. After waiting for some time, three persons were apprehended, including the present accused/applicant. Upon search, the police allegedly recovered 29 packets containing a total of 58.392 kilograms of ganja from their possession. 4. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet on 30.08.2025 against the accused persons, wherein as many as nine prosecution witnesses have been cited. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant submits that at the time of arrest of the accused/applicant, the mandatory provisions of Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 were not complied with by the arresting authority. It is contended that non-compliance of the statutory safeguards relating to arrest vitiates the procedure adopted by the police. In this regard, reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including Vikram Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC online SC 269 and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416, wherein it has been held that the procedural safeguards during arrest are mandatory in nature and any violation thereof amounts to infringement of the fundamental rights of the accused. Therefore, such violation entitles the accused/applicant to be considered for grant of bail. Page No.# 3/4 6. Per contra, the learned APP submits that the mandate of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was duly complied with inasmuch as a WT message was immediately sent to the jurisdictional police officer after the arrest. It is further submitted that the accused/applicants were permitted to inform their family members about their arrest by allowing them to use mobile phones. Therefore, according to the learned APP, there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 48 of the BNSS. However, the learned APP very fairly submits, upon perusal of the case records, that the arrest memo prepared at the time of arrest does not bear the signature of any independent witness. 7. This Court has perused the scanned copy of the trial court records produced before it. Upon examination, it is found that although arrest memos were prepared, no signature of any witness is found on the said arrest memos as required under Section 36 of the BNSS. It is further evident from the record that, though there is a mention that the accused/applicant was allowed to speak with his family members, no written notice under Section 48 of the BNSS is available in the case record. Additionally, the WT message does not contain the grounds of arrest of the accused/applicant. Non-compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions under Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS is fatal to an arrest made without warrant. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory provisions of Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS have not been complied with by the arresting authority while arresting the accused/applicant. Such non- compliance renders the arrest illegal being violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the arrest of the accused/applicant is held to be in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution Page No.# 4/4 of India. 9. Considering the entire materials available on record, this Court directs that the accused/applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Sribhumi, subject to the following conditions: (i)That the accused/applicant shall cooperate fully with the trial court in Special (NDPS) Case No. 49/2025; (ii)That the accused/applicant shall appear before the trial court as and when required; (iii)That the accused/applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, induce, threaten, or promise any person in any manner so as to influence them regarding the facts or evidence of the case; (iv)That the accused/applicant shall provide full cooperation to the trial court by submitting all relevant contact details, including photocopies of Aadhaar cards, driving licenses, PAN cards, and mobile phone numbers, and update the court as and when required; (v)That the accused/applicant shall not commits any offense while released on bail. 10. In terms of the aforesaid directions, the instant bail application is hereby disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant