GAHC010145372025 2025:GAU-AS:16050 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./2166/2025 GOUJALAL SINGSON AND ANR S/O- HAOTINKIP SINGSON.

R/O- VILL.- LHANGJOL, P.S. AND DIST.- CHURACHANDPUR, MANIPUR, PIN-795128

2: THANGMINLUN LHUNGDIM S/O- SHOLIT LHUNGDIM R/O- VILL.- LALMAI P.S.- SANGGAIKOI DIST.- CHURACHANDPUR MANIPUR PIN-795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS

ORDER

Date : 25.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing counsel assisted by Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel for the NCB.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Gaujalal Singson and Thangminlun Lhungdim, praying for bail in connection with NCB Crime No. 07/2024, under Section 22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The petitioners were arrested on 24-07-2024 and presently in judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation, the case was charge sheeted, followed by framing of charges and commencement of trial in NDPS Case No. 3/2025, pending before the learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his primary contentions are that the accused and his relative have not been properly noticed under section 47/48 BNSS as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. He has drawn the attention of the court to the annexed copies of the said documents. It is also submitted that there is also no proper compliance with section 36 of the BNSS as the arrest memo does not contain the signatures of witnesses. The learned counsel submits that the memorandum of arrest purportedly given to his relative also does not bear the signature of the said relative.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel, NCB submits that the prosecution has filed a detailed objection, contending that there has been due compliance with the notices required to be given at the time of arrest and that there is no violation of any Constitutional provision. It is also contended in the bail objection that there are significant materials linking the accused persons to the alleged offences of trafficking of a large quantity of psychotropic substances from Manipur.

6. The learned Standing counsel, NCB in supporting the bail objection refers to the relevant portions of the scanned TCR received from the learned court below and contends that the memorandum of arrest sufficiently mentions the grounds and there is requisite compliance with the statutory provisions as well as the constitutional mandate. The learned prosecution also refers to a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in BA No. 1635 of 2025 in which this Court after referring to the notice under Section 47 BNSS and the memo of arrest came to the conclusion that there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the accused. The learned prosecution also refers to recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2025 0 INSC 1288 and draws attention to paras 56, 57 and 58 thereof. 7. I have perused the relevant materials including the scanned TCR and considered the rival submissions.

8. Before proceeding further, the notice under Section 47 of BNSS given to the accused/ Gaujalal Singson may be reproduced below –

“Shri/Smt : Goujalal Singson (DOB 25.02.1994).

S/o, D/o, W/o : Haotinkap Singson, Village- : D Lhangjol village, Police Station/Sub-Division – Churachandpur, District : Churachandpur, State : Manipur – 795128.

Case No. NCB Guwahati Crime No. 07/2024 U/S : 08(c)/22(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.

You are hereby informed that you are arrested