Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010108562026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1452/2026 SRI MANGAL BORO AND ANR S/O SWMBA BORO R/O DAIFANG KHUTI P.S. ROWTA DISTRICT - UDALGURI, ASSAM 2: SRI BRIJESH YADAV S/O RAJENDRA YADAV R/O VILLAGE BHAISAR P.S. RAUNAPAAR DISTRICT - AZAMGARH UTTAR PRADES VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U J SAIKIA, K BARO Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 24.06.2026 Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioners, namely, Mangal Boro and Brijesh Yadav, praying for grant of bail in connection with Rowta P.S. Case No. 29/2026 u/s 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act. 3. The petitioners were arrested on 16.05.2026. 4. The FIR was lodged with the allegation that an information was received about peddling of narcotic drugs whereupon, the police personnel went to the house of petitioner No.1 and there, the petitioner No.2 was found and it was revealed from him that he had come there for a consignment deal of ganja. Subsequently, the house premises was searched and intermediate quantity of suspected ganja being 5.090 kgs were recovered and seized in the presence of witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to petitioner No.2 who hails from outside the State, there has been no compliance of section 48 BNSS regarding furnishing grounds of arrest to family member or nominated persons of the petitioner No. 2. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that investigation has revealed incriminating materials against the petitioners and that, seizure witnesses have supported the seizure of the contraband. It is fairly submitted that except for a WT message to Azamgarh police station (U.P.) to inform family members of petitioner No.2, there is no other materials regarding proper compliance of section 48 BNSS. 7. Thus, I find that with regard to petitioner No. 2, there is non- compliance of section 48 BNSS in the manner required by the constitutional Page No.# 3/3 provision and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard and therefore, his arrest being vitiated, he is required to be granted bail in this case. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 2, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Rowta P.S. Case No. 29/2026 u/s 20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount – out of which one of the sureties should be the resident of Assam – to the satisfaction of concerned learned court. 9. The direction for bail is further subject to the following conditions: (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate with the remaining investigation and shall not abscond; and (ii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with evidence. 10. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 11. However, with regard to the other co-accused, (petitioner No.1 Mangal Boro) considering the nature of the alleged offences and the fact that investigation is still ongoing, the bail petition stands rejected as regards to the petitioner No. 1 at this stage. 12. With the above observations, this bail petition stands disposed of. 13. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant