Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030004482026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./55/2026 Sh. Samsul Hoque S/o Terakib Ali, R/o Moynala, Karimganj District, Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:The officer-in-Charg Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Vanlalhriata Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 16.07.2026 Heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 has prayed for his enlargement on Page No.# 2/9 bail. According to the petitioner, he was arrested on 06.03.2026 at 7:00 PM by the Excise Personnel in connection with recovery of 13.119 kgs of suspected Methamphetamine kept in 13 bundles in a Tata Maxi Cab Sumo bearing Registration No. MZ-01-N-4674 at Zemabawk. According to the petitioner, he was arrested because he has been named as the person to receive the consignment by one Mr. Thangtinkapa, S/o Ngindova, R/o Ramhlun North, who during interrogation had stated before the Excise Personnel that the petitioner would be receiving the contraband articles that was seized. Accordingly, Excise Case No. EX-N-41/2026 under Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act was registered and investigated into. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has sought for grant of bail on the ground that there has been gross violation of Section 47 and Section 48 of the BNSS Act. Further, in view of the violation of the said provisions, the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India has also been violated. Referring to the grounds of arrest prepared and furnished to the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that the same does not contain the specific ground for which the petitioner was arrested and therefore, the same does not meet the requirement of Section 47 of the BNSS. He submits that the suspected Methamphetamine Page No.# 3/9 was not even recovered from the possession of the petitioner and therefore, his arrest is illegal. 4. The learned counsel further submits that as per Section 48 of the BNSS, intimation of arrest has to be sent to the near relative, friend or acquaintance of the arrested person, but the same has not been done in the instant case. He submits that the Arresting Authority has prepared an arrest intimation, wherein name of his wife has been entered stating that since she could not come to the place of occurrence, intimation was given about the arrest over phone. He submits that the same does not meet the requirement stipulated in Section 48 of the BNSS, since no reason has been stated in the said intimation as to why the petitioner has been arrested. Further, since the wife of the petitioner resides in a different State, the Arresting Authority is required to send the intimation of arrest by post, which however has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the provision of Section 48 having been violated, the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities: 1. Hemkhochon Touthang Vs. State of Mizoram, 2026:GAU- MZ:177. Page No.# 4/9 2. Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2025) 5 SCC 799. 5. The learned counsel lastly submits that since the petitioner has been lingering in jail since his arrest and in view of the violation of the mandatory provisions of law, he should be released on bail. 6. Per contra, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was indeed informed about the grounds of arrest and that he has sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of his arrest. At any rate, she submits that the purpose of Section 48 of the BNSS is that the person arrested is made to understand the reason of his arrest and the fact that he also has a right to consult a legal practitioner to seek his bail. She submits that the mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. She therefore submits that from a bare perusal of the grounds of arrest furnished to the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, the petitioner has been made fully aware as to why he has been arrested and there is no question of there being violation of the said provision. To support her submission, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also relied upon the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra). In addition, she has also placed reliance upon the Apex Court decision in Kasireddy Upender Reddy Page No.# 5/9 Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1228. 7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor by further referring to the Case Diary that she has produced submits that from the recorded statements of the petitioner by the Excise Authorities, it can be clearly appreciated that the petitioner was the recipient of the said consignment, but before the same could reached him, the consignment was seized by the Excise Personnel. She submits that although the petitioner is a Cement Mistiri by profession, but he has been engaging himself in the transportation of contraband substances in the past and has also earned a handsome remuneration for doing so. She submits that although the consignment may not have been recovered physically from the possession of the petitioner, but he has the required information as to how the consignment was going to reach him and he was there to collect the same, but for the interception made by the Excise Personnel. She submits that the investigations are on the verge of completion and the Charge-sheet is likely to be submitted shortly before the Court concerned. She therefore submits that the petitioner may not be released on bail at this stage. 8. In so far as the averment by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 48 of the BNSS is violated, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the same is not the factual position in view of the fact that clear intimation Page No.# 6/9 was given to the wife of the petitioner over phone. The petitioner has not only provided the phone number of his wife but also has acknowledged about the phone call made to her in the body of the arrest intimation. Such being the case, there is no substance in the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also produced the Case Diary for perusal of this Court. 10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the materials available on record including the Case Diary produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 11. The petitioner was arrested on 06.03.2026 by the Excise Personnel after it came to be known that he was to receive the consignment of the contraband substance, which was recovered by the Excise Personnel. This information came to light from the interrogation of Sh. Thangtinkapa. Sh. Thangtinkapa has also been arrested in connection with the said recovery. The main thrust of argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is violation of Section 47 of the BNSS. He has submitted that it is not clear from the grounds of arrest furnished to the petitioner as to why he has been arrested and what was his Page No.# 7/9 role in the recovery of the alleged contraband substance. The grounds of arrest prepared and given to the petitioner is annexed at page No. 16 of the Bail Application, wherein it is indicated that there was a recovery of Methamphetamine weighing 13.119 kgs and that the petitioner is alleged to be possessor of the contraband substance. The same amounts to contravention of Section 22 (c) of the ND&PS Act. What can be noticed is that the grounds of arrest is in the form of a format and a tick mark has been given above the relevant portion of the format, i.e., the “Possessor” in respect of the petitioner and “ Smuggler/Transporter” in respect of the co-accused person Sh. Thangtinkapa. The Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) has held that the mode and method of communication about the grounds of arrest must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved. In other words, the person arrested should know as to why he has been arrested. Further, possession of the contraband substance does not necessarily mean that the same has to be physically possessed by the accused person, but could also include the keeping of the contraband substance in a particular place known to the accused and which is under his control. The same is an established principal of law. In the present case, from the Case Diary produced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the petitioner was aware about the consignment that he was to collect and therefore, cannot deny his involvement in the matter. Under the Page No.# 8/9 circumstances, this Court does not find any substance in the argument projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been violation of Section 47 of the BNSS. 12. In so far as the submission that the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS is defective, it may be seen that the information of the arrest of the petitioner was given to his wife in the phone number provided by the petitioner. In the arrest intimation that was prepared, it was stated that since the wife of the petitioner could not come to the place of occurrence, intimation was given to her by phone. The same was acknowledged by the petitioner by giving his signature. The learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has relied upon the decision of this Court in Hemkhochon Touthang (supra) that a written arrest intimation ought to have been sent to the relative of the petitioner. However, the petitioner himself has not disputed about intimation given to his wife that he was arrested by the Excise Personnel in connection with the registered case by acknowledging the same in the arrest intimation letter. Therefore, the decision under the facts and circumstances would not apply to the case of the petitioner. In fact, the case of the petitioner in Hemkhochon Touthang (supra) was with regard to the grounds of arrest not being communicated to him in the language he understood. Same is not the Page No.# 9/9 case in the present application. The petitioner in fact has been working in the State as a Cement Mistiri for a long time while having indulged in transportation or delivery of contraband substance even on earlier occasions as per the statements made by him before the Excise Authorities. As submitted by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the Investigating Authority has more or less completed the investigation and that the Charge-sheet would be filed shortly. Such being the position, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the application for bail submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected and the bail application stands disposed of. 14. It is also made clear that any observation made in this order is for considering the bail application and the same shall not have an influence on the case during trial. JUDGE Comparing Assistant