Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India on 22 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010158232025
2025:GAU-AS:11279
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2316/2025
RENNEITHANG ALIAS R N THANGBOY
S/O-M. SEIKHOSAT KUKI R/O- MISAO LHAHVOM P.S AND P.S- CHURA
CHANDPPUR DIST- CHURA CHANDPUR MANIPUR,795128
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, NCB
Advocate for the Petitioner : DARAK ULLAH, S BEGUM,MS A HUSSAIN,SABRISH AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
22.08.2025
Heard Mr. D. Ullad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the NCB.
By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
NCB Guwahati Crime Case No. 04/2025 registered under Section 22(C)/29 of
Page No.# 2/5
the NDPS Act.
The case of the petitioner is that the NCB unit had seized 9.810 kgs of
Methamphetamine tablets from a vehicle at Lailapur Police Checkpost Silchar,
Assam from the conscious possession of the accused person i.e. the petitioner.
In this regard a case is registered under Section 8(C) of the NDPS Act and the
petitioner was arrested on 06.04.2025 and since then he is inside the jail.
Mr. D. Ullad, the learned counsel for the petitioner stresses on two
grounds for releasing the petitioner on bail and they are:- firstly, the petitioner
was not served with the grounds of arrest as contemplated under Section 47 of
the BNSS although a notice under Section 47 of BNSS was furnished to him and
secondly, although some information were given in the notice purportedly
furnished under Section 47 of the BNSS, the same was in English language
which the petitioner is not familiar with. The learned counsel placed the notice
under Section 47 of the BNSS which was furnished to the petitioner wherein it
was stated that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the mentioned
case and 9.810 kgs of Methamphetamine tablets were seized from him. By the
said notice it was also stated to the petitioner that the case is non-bailable and
that he will be produced before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Court and that he may
submit petition before the Hon'ble Court for his bail. He has such submits that
no details regarding the fact as to how the petitioner was apprehended and
Page No.# 3/5
what was the information before hand and other details were not there in the
said notice. He had also placed the statement of the accused which was
recorded by the Trial Court wherein the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar
had stipulated before taking the statement of the petitioner that the accused
cannot speak any other language except Kuki and therefore interpreter was
appointed. As such, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not
understand whatever was written in the so called grounds of arrest given by
issuing him a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS. Counsel also stated that the
contrabands that was stated to be seized by the NCB were not stated to be of
the petitioner in the said Section 47 BNSS notice.
On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Keyal submits that enough compliance of
Section 47 of the BNSS were done in the instant case. He by placing the notice
under Section 47 of the BNSS states that the information that the petitioner was
arrested in connection with the said case wherein Methamphetamine tablets
were recovered and that the petitioner can avail remedy were all informed to
the petitioner. He also placed the arrest memo furnished to the petitioner by
which the information that the seizure were made from the vehicle and the
same being in conscious possession of the petitioner were stated. He had also
placed the judgment which was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka vs Shree Darshan reported in 2005 SCC OnLine 1702 wherein it was
Page No.# 4/5
observed that unless prejudice is shown the arrested person cannot take the
ground that written communication is not given to him under Section 47 of the
BNSS and that absence of written grounds per se will not be fatal in every case.
The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner in his statement
before the Trial Court had stated that he can read and write English and
Manipuri very well and he can speak Manipuri and Hindi also. As such, he
submits that the ground that the petitioner did not understand English cannot
be accepted in view of the same.
Heard the counsels and have perused the records.
It is provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India that no
person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as
soon as may be the grounds of arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult
or defended by legal practitioner and Section 47 of the BNSS Act provides that
every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall
forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is
arrested and other grounds for such arrest and Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023
makes it obligatory that the said information has to be furnished to the relatives
of the accused person. In the instant case it is seen in the notice which is
served under Section 47 of the BNSS, the Investigating Officer has informed the
petitioner that he is arrested in connection with the said case and that
Page No.# 5/5
Methamphetamine tablets were recovered in connection of the said case and
that the petitioner will be produced before the Jurisdictional Court and that he
may submit petition for bail. In the arrest memo which is required to be
furnished upon the accused person, it is written that the said Methamphetamine
tablets were recovered from the vehicle and from the conscious possession of
the petitioner and other details were also provided by the said document. It is
as such cannot be said that the petitioner were not aware of the details of the
case under which he was arrested. Further in his statement before the
Investigating Officer, the petitioner had stated that he knew that ha can read
and write English and it was seen that he has put his signature in English in
every document.
In the fact of the present case, this Court does not deems it fit to release
the petitioner on bail, at this stage.
The petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
