Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030004232026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./52/2026 Sh. Dildar Hussain S/o Mokaddas, Tarakandi, Barpeta District, Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jamaiko Singpho Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 03.07.2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Saitual P.S Case No. 39/2026 under Section 21(c)/25 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. Page No.# 2/4 3. The petitioner was arrested on 20.01.2026. 4. Mr. N. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are serious defects in the notices under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS and in view of the violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been violated and therefore, continued detention of the petitioner requires interference by this Court. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the notices under Section 47 of the BNSS, allegedly served on the petitioner. He submits that the contents of the notice do not reflect the grounds of arrest. The notice under Section 48 of the BNSS also does not reveal any grounds of arrest and there is no record to show that the same had been in fact served upon the family members of the petitioner though it quotes that the wife of the petitioner had been informed about the arrest over the Mobile Phone. 5. The learned counsel has also submitted that the information of the arrest may have been conveyed but there is no record to show that the grounds of arrest had also been conveyed to the family members of the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that illegal detention of the petitioner be curtailed by this Court and the privilege of bail be granted to the present facts and circumstances. Page No.# 3/4 7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that copy of the Case Diary has been received. 8. On a perusal of the notices under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 allegedly issued by the Arresting Authority, this Court finds that the requirement of the aforesaid provision of law has not been met in the process of the arrest of the petitioner. There is no record to show that there was any effort on the part of the Arresting Authority to send the intimation with grounds of arrest in writing to the relative of the accused person by post or through the Officer-in- Charge of the Police Station, where the wife of the accused resides for delivery of the notice. As there is no indication placed before this Court that such written communication had been made by the relative of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the applicant is required to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two (2) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl. (2) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Page No.# 4/4 Investigating Authority Officer as and when required. (3) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer. (4) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without giving him prior intimation with details of his place or state of visit. (5) Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 10. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant