GAHC010227912025 2025:GAU-AS:16604

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./3309/2025

MD AZAD KHAN

S/O M. SARAT

R/O YARIPOK BAZAR,P.S. YARIPOK

DIST. THOUBAL, MANIPUR

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR. T HUSSAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

03.12.2025

Heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.

Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondents.

2. This is an application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused – applicant, namely, Md. Azad Khan, has

prayed for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 83/2025, under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act, corresponding to Dillai P.S. Case No.20/2025 pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.

3. Vide an order dated 21.11.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has specifically called for the scanned copies of the arrest documents including notices under Sections 47 / 48 BNSS. Accordingly, a report dated 26.11.2025 issued by the Officer-in-Charge of Dillai Police Station, Karbi Anglong is placed before this Court by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, which is marked as ‘X’ and kept on record. The aforesaid report reveals that though a WT Message was sent to the SHO Yaripok, Manipur to intimate about the arrest of the accused – applicant, notice under Section 48 BNSS could not be served to the guardian / relatives of the arrested accused persons.

4. This Court has also perused the scanned copies of the records produced from the District and Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. On perusal of the same, this Court could not find any such document suggesting any service of notice under Section 48 of BNSS.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant submits that there violation of Section 48 of BNSS gives an unfettered right of bail to the accused – applicant as the whole arrest procedure becomes illegal due to non- compliance of the mandates of Section 48 of BNSS, which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions including Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Harayana reported in 2025 INSC 162.

6. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are incriminating materials against the accused – applicant. He submits that the notice under Section 48 could not be found to be served as per the procedure laid down under BNSS.

7. This Court after taking into account the fact of the length of detention of the accused – applicant i.e. more than 7 and ½ months and also considering the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties as well as going through the materials brought on record, is of the opinion that the accused – applicant should be allowed to go on bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused - applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge, NDPS, Diphu, Karbi Anglong subject to the following conditions-

(i) That the accused - applicant shall co-operate in the trial of NDPS Case No. 83/2025, under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act;

(ii) That the accused applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;

(iii) That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present accused applicant;

(iv) That the accused applicant shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;

(v) That the accused applicant shall not l