Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020004622026 2026:GAU-NL:364 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./14/2026 MR. PF THEMREICHAN S/O R. PFIIDIAI, R/O KHONGDEI KHUMAN VILLAGE, SENAPATI, MANIPUR. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT A.G. COLONY, KOHIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : A ZHO SR ADV, ATSIZO KENSE,B LEA,C. LOSOU,V KOZA,B. SOTO Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Soto, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned PP for the State. Page No.# 2/6 2. Invoking the jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, this bail petition has been filed seeking bail of the accused, Keystone, who was arrested in connection with Khuzama PS case no. 02/2026 under section 22(c) NDPS Act r/w section 3 (5) BNS. He was arrested on 05.05.2026. 3. The allegation in the FIR dated 05.05.2026 was that, during naka checking within the jurisdiction of the said police station, a vehicle (Maruti Alto) bearing registration No. NL 07CD 5992, was found approaching, and upon such suspicion, the vehicle was searched and from the rear side of the vehicle 25 (twenty five) soap cases containing 302 grams of suspected heroin were found. The vehicle had two occupants, being the present accused and the co- accused. 4. Mr. A. Zho, learned Senior counsel primarily contends that the notice under section 47 BNSS has not complied with the requirements of the law, crystallized in the various case laws, including the decisions of this Court. It is also submitted that the present accused was an innocent passenger of the vehicle and he had no idea about such contraband in the said vehicle. It is stated that in the seizure list annexed with the petition, the name of the co-accused finds mention, but not that of the petitioner. It is also submitted that in the statement before the police, he has completely denied any involvement and stated that he was just a passenger in the vehicle. Page No.# 3/6 5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following decisions:- (i) Papu Das Vs. The State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 382 of 2025; (ii) Sakib Choudhury Vs. The State of Assam, Bail Appln. No. 629 of 2025; (iii) D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416. 6. The scanned TCR is available. 7. The learned PP also produced the updated case diary and strongly opposes bail at this stage. He submits that there is due compliance with the notices under section 47/48, after referring to the same on the records. Showing the statement of the independent seizure witnesses, he submitted that he supported the seizure as alleged in the FIR. It is also submitted that the materials indicated in the CDR are also incriminating, with regard to the petitioner as well. 8. I have given my consideration to the materials and considered the submissions of the learned counsels, including the case laws. 9. The notice under section 47 BNSS to the present accused, may be reproduced herein below:- Page No.# 4/6 “GROUNDS OF ARREST To, Mr./Ms. AL Keystone S/o/D/o- Lakamva Resident of: Khongdei Date & Time of arrest: 05/05/26 Case Ref. Kzma Ps C/No 002/26 I, [Name of the arresting Officer] Huchu Dazo [Rank/Designation], ASI posted at [Police station Khuzama do herby inform you that you are being placed under arrest the provision of BNSS Act. The specific grounds of your arrest are as follows: 1. That on [Date]- 05/05/26, you were found to be involved in [brief description of the alleged offence or act] illegal possession 2. That sufficient material and evidence, including [mention documentary, electronic if any or witness-based evidence] - 302 gms, NDPS Heroin, establishes a prima facie case against you. 3. That your custodial interrogation is considered necessary for the purpose of investigation. 4. That your actions are punishable under sections [mention relevant legal provisions] of [BNS/NDPS/other applicable law]-22(c) NDPS/3(5) BNS. (The above said ground of arrest has been explained to the accused in the language which he understands) This is in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 of BNSS, 2023. Place: Khuzama Sd/- Date: 05/05/26 (signature of arresting Officer) Name: Huchu Dazo Designation:ASI Police Station: Khuzama Sd/- (Signature of the accused) Name: A.L Keystone" 10. Upon perusing the aforesaid notice under section 47 BNSS, it Page No.# 5/6 cannot be said that there is no compliance at all, as the said notice mentions the ground of arrest as involvement in illegal possession of 302 grams of heroin. However, it is desirable that some more details are given in such notice, so as to make the compliance better. 11. A non-compliance with a notice under Section 47 BNSS or an inadequate compliance to the extent of not meeting the constitutional standards laid down in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court [in cases such as Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254] - would be a fatal infirmity in the arrest procedure. Therefore, in a situation where there has been some compliance, it has to be seen as to whether the said compliance can be considered reasonable enough to meet the requirement under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India. For such purpose, perhaps a hyper technical view may not be taken, especially in serious offences such as illegal drugs, crimes against women, etc. 12. Coming back to the instant case, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid notice would meet the requirement of conveying in a reasonable manner, the basic grounds on which the accused was arrested. And, therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Senior counsel in this regard. 13. The prosecution opposing the bail has contended about the involvement of the present accused as well. Of course, in his statement he has denied about involvement, while the co-accused has made some Page No.# 6/6 admission in his statement. 14. Needless to say that these statements are non admissible. The contraband was recovered from the rear side of the vehicle in which both the accused persons were present. The seizure witness has supported the said seizure. The quantity per se falls within the bracket of commercial quantity. From the case diary, I find that the CDR analysis is stated to reveal frequent connections between both the accused(s). 15. As the case is under active investigation, therefore, considering the circumstances in its entirety, this Court is unable to accept the prayer for bail at this stage. 16. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected at this stage. However, it is made clear that no determination has been made at this stage with regard to section 37 of the NDPS Act. 17. The bail application stands disposed of. 18. Return the CD. JUDGE Comparing Assistant