Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010103192026 2026:GAU-AS:9431 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1364/2026 SHRI JAMAL UDDIN S/O- IBRAHIM ALIR/O - VILL - KEUTKUNAP.S. - SINGARIA BAZARP.O. - SINGARIA PT.IDISTRICT - SRIBHUMIASSAM, PIN - 788719 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR W R MEDHI, MR P TALUKDAR,MR A V SINGH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 26.06.2026 Heard Mr. W.R. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel, DRI. 2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/6 Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioner namely, Jamal Uddin, has prayed for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 147/2025 (arising out of DRI Case No. 22/CL/NDPS/METH/ DRI/GZU/2024-25) under Section 21(C)/22(C)/23(C)/25&29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Kamrup(M), Assam. 3. The said case after completion of investigation was charge-sheeted and presently stated to be at the stage of trial as NDPS Case No. 147 of 2025 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 5, (Kamrup) Guwahati. The petitioner was arrested on 17/12/2024 and presently in judicial custody. 4. The gist of the allegations is in the FIR is about recovery of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances (methamphetamine) quantified at 12 kgs and estimated at market value of Rs.12 crores from an intercepted vehicle (Mahindra Scorpio) bearing Registration No. AS01EN6552. 5. The primary contention of the petitioner side is that, notice under section 48 BNSS was not given to the family of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. 6. On the other hand, the Prosecuting Agency, the DRI, submitted and contended that the alleged offences are very serious in nature, constituting trafficking of illegal drugs in large quantities. It is submitted that the notice under section 48 BNSS was transmitted to the family of the accused at the time of his arrest. It is submitted that there has been Page No.# 3/6 substantial compliance with requirement of convening the information through the family member of the arrested accused. In the written objection filed by the prosecution, the copy of the said arrest memo is also fairly annexed. However, no notice under Section 48 BNSS has been annexed in the said objection. 7. From the scanned TCR, this Court could not locate a separate notice under section 48 BNSS about conveying of the grounds of arrest to the family member or nominated person of the arrested accused. However, in the arrest memo, it is stated that – “he has been duly apprised of the grounds of his arrest and his arrest had been intimated to his father over phone.” 8. In support of the contention of the substantial compliance, the prosecution as referred State of Karnataka -vs- Sri. Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 INSC 979 and State of Punjab vs. Gurjit Singh @ Geetu, reported in 2023 Legal Eagle (SC) 376. It is submitted that in view of the applicability of the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, mere long incarceration may not entitle the accused to bail invoking the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. The law on the subject has sufficiently crystallized by now, though it has to be accepted that at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested on 17/12/2024 – the governing law as it stands today was still emerging. Nevertheless, the law as it stands today upon being laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has to be applied to the facts of the case. In terms of the law laid down in the several decisions including the landmark decision in Vihaan Kumar -vs- State of Haryana, reported Page No.# 4/6 in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the notice under section 48 BNSS is mandatory in the absence of which the arrest would be vitiated making further detention untenable. The same has been further clarified in Mihir Rajesh Shah -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 and other related decisions. The Prosecuting Agency has contended about the test of prejudice, referring to the decision in State of Karnataka -vs- Sri. Darshan Etc. (supra). Both Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Darshan (supra) are rendered by Benches of equal strength (Coram 2). Therefore, in terms of the principle laid down in National Insurance Company Limited –vs- Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the Division Bench of this Court in National Investigation Agency -vs- Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate, passed in Crl. A. No. 234/2025, the decision earlier in point of time would still hold the field. Thus, the principles laid down on the subject matter in Vihaan Kumar (supra) are still good law. The grounds of arrest might be mentioned in sufficient delay in the arrest memo under section 35 of BNSS and it can be argued that it constitutes substantial compliance even if there is infirmity in the notices under section 47/48 BNSS. However, as already discussed, the strict compliance indicated by Vihaan Kumar (supra) rendered earlier in point of time still holds the field. Though, Darshan (supra) rendered later in point of time talks about substantial compliance also. 10. The aforesaid manner of communication of the family of the arrested person clearly would not satisfy the requirement of compliance under Section 48 BNSS in terms of the governing law on the subject. Para 17 Page No.# 5/6 and 18 of the order dated 06.05.2026 in BA/466/2026, granting bail to the co-accused of this case may be reproduced herein below- 17. In a particular situation due to exigencies, it may be required on the part of the I.O to intimate the arrest on phone to the family member of the arrestee. However, the matter should not end there and it should be followed up by preparing the notice under section 48 and given to the family member and the receipt acknowledged from them or refusal endorsed. These materials should also find place in the Case Diary. 18. In view of the governing law, the Investigating Officer has to go this extra mile in complying with this procedural formalities, which ultimately flow from the Constitution, as has been laid down in the case laws. 11. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the initial telephonic information given to the father, if accepted also on the basis of the arrest memo – is not followed up with any notice under section 48 BNSS. No such notice is also found in the record as already stated. Therefore, the arrest of the accused/petitioner on 17/12/2024 in this case pertaining to serious alleged offences suffers from one fatal infirmity, making the petitioner entitled to be granted bail on that ground. 12. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances and in view of the above discussion, I allow this bail petition and the accused person is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- lakh with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom has to be from the State of Assam - to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Page No.# 6/6 13. The following conditions are imposed:- (i) The accused person shall not abscond and he shall be available for the remaining trial; (ii) He shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (iii) He shall not commit any illegal activities or offences, including any offences under the NDPS Act; and (iv) He shall not in any manner intimidate, harass or try to influence any witnesses. 14. Violation of the bail conditions would lead to cancellation of the bail. 15. The bail petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant