Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010083522026 2026:GAU-AS:8485 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1135/2026 LAXMAN SINGH AND 2 ORS. S/O DALPAT SINGH, R/O PARALIYA SANSAR, PS MANDALI, DIST BALHATRA, RAJASTHAN 2: HADMAT SINGH S/O JAY SINGH R/O GWALNADA PS KALYANPUR DIST BALHATRA RAJASTHAN 3: PARBAT SINGH S/O LT DURG SINGH R/O GWALNADA PS KALYANPUR DIST BALHATRA RAJASTHA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ, R MALI,MD A RAHMAN,SAMIM RAHMAN,MR. SURAJIT DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA Page No.# 2/4 O R D E R Date : 15.06.2026. Heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused petitioners, namely (1) Laxman Singh, (2) Hadmat Singh and (3) Parbat Singh, in connection with NDPS Case No.19/2026 (corresponding with the Dillai P.S. Case No. 71/2025), under Sections 61(2)/123 of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 18(b)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. The scanned copy of the TCR has already been received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the petitioners that the case is of commercial in nature wherein the allegation of recovery of 19.388 kg. of opium was there against the present petitioners and thus the case will also attract the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act comes into play. However, in the present case the only issue raised by the petitioners is that their family members/friends/relatives were never issued with notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and the notice which have been shown to be issued to one Sri Krishna Saha is no way related to them. However, on perusal of the scanned copy of the TCR, it reveals that as per the note of the I.O., said Sri Krishna Saha was nominated by the present petitioners to receive the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 on their behalf. Page No.# 3/4 Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given the liberty to raise the issue before the learned Trial Court below. Mr. Baruah, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam raised objection and submitted that there is full compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and from the notice itself, it is seen that there was a note of the I.O. wherein it is stated that the accused petitioners have nominated their local guardian said Krishna Saha to receive the notice on behalf of the petitioners, as they hail from the State of Rajasthan. More so, apart from that it is a case of commercial quantity wherein huge quantity of opium was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused petitioners. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for both sides, it is seen that the petitioners have not pressed the present bail petition on its merit and the only issue raised by them was of non-compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. However, during the course of argument as well as from the materials available on record also it is see that one person, namely, Krishna Saha was nominated by the present accused petitioners to receive the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 on their behalf. Considering all these aspects of the case and the nature of the allegations, the present bail petition is accordingly dismissed at this stage. However, the petitioners will be at the liberty to raise the issue of compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 before the learned Trial Court wherein it was stated that the Page No.# 4/4 notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was received by one Krishna Saha, as nominated by the accused petitioners. With the above observation, the present bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant