Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 31 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010215892025
2025:GAU-AS:14704
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3121/2025
SAHID AHMED MAJUMDER AND ANR
S/O ABDUS SAHID
R/O VILL- SABAJPUR, P.S. MURAJHAR
DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM
2: RAHANUL ISLAM
S/O NIJAMUDDIN AHMED
R/O VILL- SUNABARI GHAT
P.S. RANGIKHARI
DIST. CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, F RAHMAN,MS N SULTANA
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Linked Case : AB/1964/2025
RAJIB UDDIN
S/O ABDUS SAHID
R/O SABAJPUR
P.S. MURAJHAR
DIST. HOJAI
Page No.# 2/6
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
TO BE REP. BY THE PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR H R A CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
31.10.2025
Heard Mr. H R A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.
S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned
Addl. PP for the State.
By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Lumding P.S Case No. 67 of 2025 registered under Section 21(c)/29 of the
NDPS Act. The F.I.R dated 06.06.2025 reveals that on a secret information
that a vehicle carrying NDPS items coming from a particular side towards
other side, the police personnel after following the necessary formalities
reached the place of occurrence and during the checking intercepted 2 nos.
of vehicles and on search being made detained 2 nos. of suspected persons
and on being asked, the said persons revealed that drugs are being kept at
the rear boot of the car inside the back pack. The police on further search
found one grey and purple color bag from one of the vehicle and inside the
Page No.# 3/6
back pack found 50 nos. of colored soap boxes containing suspected
heroin.
It is stated here that the two persons that were arrested, they are the
petitioners. Mr. H R A. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has raised the
ground that although notice under Section 47 BNSS is served upon the
arrested person however, he submits that notice under Section 48 of the
BNSS was not served on the relative of the petitioners. He has placed the
notice which was sent to the O.C at Silchar, Sadar, by wt message by which
the notice to the parent of the petitioner was purportedly sent through him
however, he submits that the parent of the petitioner had not received the
said notice as it is not clear from the said notice itself.
The learned senior counsel also submitted that in respect of petitioner
No. 2 as well the said notice under Section 48 BNSS was not received by
the relatives of the said petitioner. He submits the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, wherein
it is specifically provided that grounds of arrest in writing has to be
communicated to the friends, relatives or other persons and if it is not,
then the arrest would be vitiated. On the said grounds, the learned senior
counsel has prayed for bail.
Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP vehemently argues that once the
purpose for the which the notice under Section 48 is required to be served
i.e., the arrested accused person is represented by counsel and relatives
knows about his arrest, is fulfilled the final communication to the said
relatives of the accused person may not be a required in the said facts and
circumstances of the case. He has placed the observation made by the
Page No.# 4/6
Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr,
where the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the relatives
is provided for. He further submits that whether actual communication to
the relatives was made or not, was not revealed in the Case Diary, but he
may be give some time to find out the same. As such, he submits that the
said notice under Section 48 BNSS was sent through wt message to the
O.C Silchar, Sadar for onward communication to the relative of the accused
person.
I have heard the counsels and gone through the records. It has been
held in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, by referring to
another Judgment passed in Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. Union of
India, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "communicate'' is a strong
word and that it means sufficient knowledge of the basic fact constituting
the grounds should be imparted effectively and fully to the defence in
writing in language which he understands. It is also a settled position of
law that communicating would ultimately be accepted only when the
person on the other end comes to know about the same otherwise
communication is not complete. It is noticed in the notice issued under
Section 48 of the BNSS that although the sufficient information were given
to the parents of the petitioner through the O.C Silchar, Sadar by police
officer in the Lumding Police Station however, there is nothing to show that
the said parent of the petitioner had received the said notice.
On the further argument of Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP that if a
purpose is solved, the communication becomes a mere formality is also not
accepted.
Page No.# 5/6
Further, under Section 48(3) of the BNSS, it is required that the
police should enter the information that the notice under the said section
has been served upon the relatives, in the book that they maintain as per
rules. The said information was not found in the Case Diary. And as such, it
cannot be held that sufficient compliance of Section 48 BNSS has been
done.
In view of the fact that it is required under the law under Section 48
BNSS that the said information to the said relatives has to be
communicated. It is further observed in the said Judgment Vihaan Kumar
Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, that the requirement of communicating
the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person but also
to friends, relatives, or other persons is required so as to make mandate of
Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful. Since the communication to
the parents of the petitioner is not revealed from the said notice under
Section 48 BNSS, this Court finds it fit that the petitioner may be released
on bail, since violation thereof vitiates the arrest, on furnishing a bail bond
of Rs. 30,000/- with 1 local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the
Special Judge, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai under the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner will appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when called for and will co-operate with the investigation.
2. The petitioner will not temper any evidence or influence any other
witnesses connected with the instant case.
3. The petitioner will not leave the place of residence without the
permission of the arresting authority.
Page No.# 6/6
It is further directed that the police should exercise more caution in
communicating the notice under Section 48 BNSS to the relative and must
in-coperate other details in the said notice so that it could be found out
that the said relative of the petitioner had received the same.
Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
