Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 27 February, 2026

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010005722026




                                                                  2026:GAU-AS:3099

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Bail Appln./177/2026

            MD MUJAFER HUSSAIN AND ANR
            S/O ABDUL HAKIM, VILL.MOIJANG, LAMKHAI, P.S. THOUBAI, DIST.
            THOUBAL, MANIPUR, PIN - 785128

            2: MD ACHOUBA
             S/O KAYANUDDIN
            VILL. THANGKANPHAI
             KEIRAO MAKHTING MAKHA LEIKAI
             DIST. IMPHAL EAST
             MANIPUR
             PIN 79511

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. N J DUTTA, MS. A. MEDHI

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
                                                                       Page No.# 2/7

                               BEFORE
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

                                     ORDER

27.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. PP for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for grant of bail in respect of the accused/petitioners namely i) Md. Mujafer Hussain and ii) Md. Achouba in connection with Dillai P.S. Case No. 40/2025 and punishable under Sections 21(c), 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. Two earlier bail applications, being Bail Application No. 2718 of 2025 and Bail Application No. 3667 of 2025, on behalf of the present petitioners, were rejected by this Court by Orders dated 17.10.2025 and 11.12.2025.

4. The case of the petitioners is that on 31.07.2025, Munmi Chutia lodged a written FIR at Dillai PS to the effect that on 30.07.2025, while conducting routine, Naka checking at NH 29 Dillai Tiniali at about 10 P.M, one white Swift vehicle bearing registration No. WB02AG 9632 which was moving towards Manja from Dimapur side was signalled to stop. Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle stopped for checking and while checking, it was suspected that there might be some narcotics concealed inside the vehicle. Then, the matter was informed to SSP, Karbi Anglong and SDPO Bokajan gave authorization to WSI (P) Munmi Chutia for conducting search and seizure of narcotic psychotropic's substances if found. After sometime, DYSP (P) Shri Arup Baishya, APS and staff arrived at the Naka checking and in the presence of DYSP and Independent witnesses, the Page No.# 3/7

vehicle was searched thoroughly. During the search, two packets of muddy colour powdery substance suspected to be morphine were recovered weighting total of 2.127 Kg which was kept concealed in between the fuel tank and upper body inside one torn tube. The recovered substances were tested with the help of DDT kit and found positive for morphine. After that recovered substances were seized, packed and sealed in the presence of independent witnesses and the driver and accompanied persons were apprehended namely 1. Achouba, son of Kayam Uddin, resident of Keitao Makhting Leikai, P.S. Irilbung, District Imphal East, Manipur and 2. Md. Mujafer Hussain, son of Abdul Hakim, resident of Moijing Lamkhai, P.S. and District Thoubal, Manipur.

5. The petitioners were produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bokajan, Assam on 31.07.2025 and forwarded to judicial custody and since that day, they are in judicial custody.

6. The new ground that has been raised on behalf of the present petitioners in this third bail application is that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioners/arrestees by way of a notice under Section 47, and it is also reiterated that notices under Section 48 to the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioners were not furnished to them.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, to submit that non- compliance with the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS, which are required to be in writing, vitiates the arrest.

Page No.# 4/7

8. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners had been made fully aware of the grounds of their arrest as would be apparent from the notices under Section 47 of the BNSS issued to the petitioners and moreover, W.T. Message was also sent on 31.07.2025, stating the ground of arrest to the jurisdictional Police Station i.e., Irilbong and Thoubal in the State of Manipur.

9. It is further submitted by the learned Addl. PP that no new ground has been raised in the present bail application and all the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners have been dealt with in the earlier order rejecting the prayer for bail.

10. Let me first deal with the issue of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to the petitioners. A perusal of the notices under Section 47 would show that the said notice issued to each of the petitioners consisted of two pages, the grounds of arrest being mentioned in the second page. However, the signature of the arrestee appears only on the first page, corresponding to the column, "signature of the arrested person". However, there is no signature of the arrestee on the second page, where the grounds of arrest have been stated, in the space meant for the signature of the arrested person.

11. It is not disputed that the said two pages are continuous and form part of the same document. But it has been insisted upon by learned counsel that, since there is a specific space on the second page meant for putting the signature of the arrested person, and the said page also contains the grounds of arrest, in the absence of a signature on the said second page, it must be concluded that the grounds of arrest were not Page No.# 5/7

furnished to the arrested person.

12. I am unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that the said document is a continuous one consisting of two pages and, having obtained the signature on one page of the said document, it would be presumed that the entire document was furnished to the arrested person, including the page containing the grounds of arrest. There could have been no reason for the arresting authority not to obtain the signature on the second page if it had not considered the signature on the first page to be sufficient. Furthermore, the format of the notice under Section 47 BNSS in the instant case is not a statutory format, in which case it would have been regarded as a requirement of law that the signature of the arrested person should appear at every space set out for the same in the said notice. But that is not the case as admittedly, there is no uniformity in the formats of the notices under Section 47 BNSS issued in the State of Assam by different arresting authorities under different jurisdictions. Therefore, the signature of the arrestee on every page, though may be desirable, cannot be regarded as mandatory.

13. As far as the other contention regarding non-compliance with Section 48 BNSS is concerned, the same has been dealt with in the order dated 17.10.2025 in the first bail application, being bail application 2718 of 2025 as follows:

"11. From the above, it is seen that the very purpose of furnishing the

notice under Section 50 A of the Cr.P.C./ Section 48 of the BNSS to the relatives etc. is to ensure that they would be able to take Page No.# 6/7

immediate and prompt action to secure release of the arrested persons as permissible under the law. In the instant case, it is seen that on the date of production, the accused are represented by the learned LADC and within two days thereafter, they were represented by Private Counsel engaged by their family members. Therefore, the purpose of Section 48 of the BNSS has been duly served in the Instant case.

15. What must also be noticed is that the addresses of the accused persons lie within the State of Manipur, which is still experiencing severe unrest due to ethnic violence and It is not always easy to effect service of notice and obtain proof thereof. The decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra) cannot be read as permitting of no exception, regardless of the circumstances, which view is prima facie supported by the use of the word "may" in paragraph 42 of the said judgment."

14. Since the said issue was raised earlier and has already been dealt with by the first order of rejection, and no case has been made out warranting departure from the earlier order on this aspect of the matter, I do not find any force in the contentions of learned counsel in this regard.

15. Having regard to the above, I do not find any merit in the present bail application, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE Page No.# 7/7

Comparing Assistant