Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010091572026 2026:GAU-AS:8464 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1231/2026 NUR ALAM HUSSAIN AND 4 ORS S/O ALI HUSSAIN R/O BHERBHERI,P.S. BORDUA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM- 782122 2: ABU TALEB S/OLT. NURUL ISLAM R/O PUTHIMARI P.S. JURIA DIST.NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782426. 3: MIZANUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O DURABODHI GAON P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782126 4: OMAR FARUQUE S/O ABUL HASAN R/O BORTHAL KACHARI GAON P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON 5: SHAHBUL ISLAM S/O ABDUL AJIT R/O LAGIAGAON DOOMDUMIA Page No.# 2/5 P.S. DHING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78212 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. K L R YANTHAN,MS. S. CHANDA,MS. J GHOSH,MS. U NANDA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel assisted by Ms S Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with Kalain PS Case No. 24/2026, subsequently registered as GR Case No. 378/2026, in connection with NDPS Act, 1985, presently pending in the Court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar. 3. The FIR dated 07.03.2026 reveals that on an information to the effect that there was illegal transportation of huge quantity of NDPS contrabands in two vehicles, which were coming from Silchar side towards Meghalaya, the Police personnel conducted a naka checking and stopped the vehicles, at about 12:25 pm, and apprehended the petitioners, and on checking the vehicle 10 plastic soap cases were recovered from beneath the floor seat of the passenger seat, and in respect of the other vehicles, 38 numbers of plastic Page No.# 3/5 soap cases were recovered and that both the soap cases contained suspected heroin and at 01:00 pm on the same day, the articles were seized. 4. Mr Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the petitioners were produced before the Court on the next date, i.e., on 08.03.2026, but the arrest memo served upon them was not in accordance with Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023. He submits that under the said section, a memorandum of arrest should be prepared, which should contain attestation by one witness, who can be the member of the family of the arrested person or a respectable member of the locality. He submits that the said procedure is not followed and the information about the said arrest was sent to the relatives by way of a WT message. He also submits that in the instant case, Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, was also violated, inasmuch, as the relatives of the petitioner were not communicated with the information that the petitioner was arrested as required under the said section, and that a WT message was sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the particular area, where the relative of the accused persons resided. 5. Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, however, submits that the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on the next day itself and a arrest memo was also issued to him. He submits that as per Clause-(c) of Section 36, it is provided that if a memorandum is attested by the member of the petitioners’ family and the same is prepared, in that case, the information to the relative or a friend of the person arrested may not be given, but if the said memo is not prepared then the relative of the person arrested should be informed about the arrest and he submits that on a perusal of the arrest memo, the information was given to the relatives of the arrestee. He also submits that as far as the grounds of arrest being given to the relatives of the arrested person, is concerned, that the same was dispatched to the Officer-In-Charge of the respective Police Station, where the relatives of the individual petitioners had resided and as such, he submits that the procedures have been followed. 6. On the consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties Page No.# 4/5 and on perusal of the records, this Court records the following findings:- Mr S C Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has harped mainly on two grounds, i.e., violation of Section 36 as well as Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. As far as Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023,is concerned, it is provided that every Police Officer while making an arrest shall give full identification of his name. It is also provided that he shall prepare a memorandum of arrest which has to be attested by at least one witness, who is a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable member of the locality and the same should be countersigned by the arrestee. However, it is provided under Clause- (c) of Section 36 of BNSS, that unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, the Police personnel is mandated to inform the arrestee that the arrestee has a right to have a relative or a friend or any other person to be informed of his arrest. As such, it is seen that in case, where memorandum is not attested by the member of the arrestee’s family, the arrestee has to be informed that his relative should be informed about his arrest. In the arrest memo, it is noticed that WT message is sent to the relative/friend of the arrestee. It is not produced by the petitioner that a memorandum having the attestation of a witness being a member of his family was prepared as per Clause-(b) of Section 36 or in the alternative, in the said arrest memo, the attestation is taken of any member of the family and due to the said fact, Clause-(c) of Section 36 of BNSS, 2023, comes into play. The submission of the learned counsel that Clause-(b) of Section 36 is a mandatory requirement, however, the same being with a rider as provided in Clause-(c) of the said section the said submission does not appear to be correct. The second argument made by Mr Biswas that Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, is not followed. This Court finds that under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, it is provided that every Police Officer making an arrest shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person was kept to the relatives/friends or such other persons as may be nominated by the arrestee and in the instant case, it is seen that Page No.# 5/5 the relatives nominated by the petitioner stays at different places and by virtue of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as by the High Court that in such cases information should be given to the Officer-In-Charge of the respective police station, the same is done in the instant case. A WT message was sent the Officer-In-Charge of the respective Police Stations on 08.03.2026, to be served upon the relatives, as required under the law. Therefore, this Court does not find fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the aforesaid grounds at this stage. 7. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant