Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010265652025 2026:GAU-AS:9426 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3933/2025 ABDUL MALIK SON OF LATE ABDUL RAHIM R/O VILL- BAGHAN P.S. CHURAIBARI DIST. NORTH TRIPURA, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA TO BE REP.B Y THE STANDING COUNSEL OF DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 26.06.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel for the Page No.# 2/5 DRI. 2. Invoking the provisions of Section 483 BNSS, the accused/petitioner, namely, Abdul Malik, is seeking regular bail, in connection with NDPS Case No.157/2025 registered u/s 8(C)/21(C)/22(C)/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (corresponding to DRI Case No. 24/CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25 dated 25.12.2024). The petitioner was arrested on 25.12.2024 and since then, the he is in under trial detention, presently in judicial custody. 3. The brief facts are that based on an information, the DRI officials on 25.12.2024 intercepted a truck bearing number AS-15- AC-6545, wherein, the petitioner was one of the occupants, along with the co-accused and upon searching the truck, large quantity of contraband in the form of methamphetamine drugs weighing 26,000 grams was recovered stated to be valued at Rs. 26 Crores in the illegal drugs market. The materials were seized and the persons apprehended and arrested. Subsequently, the FIR came to be registered. 4. After completion of investigation, the case resulted in a charge- sheet, in which 13 PWs were listed. The case is presently at the stage of trial. 5. Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contains that the arrest is vitiated due to non-compliance with the notice under Section 48 BNSS. It is submitted that the I/O has Page No.# 3/5 mainly stated in the arrest memo that the arrested accused has been appraised of the grounds of arrest and his arrest has been intimated to his brother over telephone. It is submitted that in terms of the constitutional provisions and the laws laid down in this regard, there is no compliance with the said notice and therefore, the petitioner should be granted bail on that ground. 6. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the DRI, contains that there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 48 BNSS. 7. Referring to the decision of State of Punjab v. Balraj and State of Punjab v. Gurjit Singh @ Geetu reported in 2026Legal Eagle (SC) 376 and State of Punjab Vs. Balraj Singh @ Billa reported in 2026 Legal Eagle (SC) 625 - the learned Senior Counsel submits that mere long incarceration by itself may not give right to the petitioner to be released on bail in terms of the principles under Article 21 of the Constitution of India - when statutory provisions like Section 37 of the NDPS Act are applicable and without satisfying the twin conditions there under. 8. I have perused the materials and considered the rival submissions. In this case, there is no doubt about the incriminating materials against the petitioners and the nature of the alleged offences is also very serious. 9. However, no notice under Section 48 BNSS could be placed before the Court. Upon perusing the arrest memo, I find that the I/O has stated that - the arrest of the petitioner has been intimated to Page No.# 4/5 his brother over phone. Notice under 47 BNSS, however, has reasonable details. 10. Undoubtedly, considering the quantity of the contraband involved, the rigours of Section 37 are applicable. However, it has been made clear by the law laid down in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 that in the face of non-compliance under Section 48 BNSS, the accused would be required to be granted bail, despite the existence of such statutory restrictions. 11. Thus, in terms of the law laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) vis-à-vis Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India - the aforesaid nature of mere telephonic intimation would not meet the requirements of Section 48 BNSS. That being the position, the further under trial detention of the accused is liable to be interfered with by granting him bail at this stage. 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. 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 Page No.# 5/5 offences, including any offences under the NDPS Act, (iv) He shall not in any manner intimidate, harass or try to influence any witnesses. 13. Violation of the bail conditions would lead to cancellation of the bail. 14. The bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant