GAHC010210092025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./2703/2025

MD RIYAJ KHAN

S/O MD. ABDUL ALI

RESIDENT OF SORA MAKHA LEIKAI

IRENGBAND

PO KAKCHING PS KAKCHING

DISTRICT KAKCHING

THOUBAL

STATE MANIPUR

PIN 795103

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL

NCB

------------

Advocate for : MR D MEDHI

Advocate for : SC

NCB appearing for UNION OF INDIA

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

Date : 12.11.2025

1. Heard Mr. K. Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB.

2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, Md. Riyaj Khan, who is detained behind the bars since 16.12.2024 in connection with the NDPS Case No. 145/2025 arising out of the NCB Crime No. 12/2024 under Section

8(c)/22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 15.12.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., the Inspector Narcotic Control Bureau, Zonal Unit Guwahati had received an information through reliable sources regarding carrying of a huge quantity of methamphetamine tablets by three persons including the present petitioners from Manipur to Guwahati inside a Maruti vehicle bearing registration no. AS-17D-

0983.

4. Accordingly, a search team was constituted and search operation was carried out. During search operation, the present petitioner was found as occupant of the Maruti vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-17D-0983 and on search, 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets were recovered therefrom.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court, mainly on the ground of violation of the mandatory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to the petitioner in proper form as well as also regarding service of notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 to the relative/friends/nominated person of the petitioners at the time of the arrest.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the notice served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, it has been stated that he was arrested in connection of seizure of 1.860 kgs of methamphetamine tablets, however, it has not been clarified therein as to from whom the seizure was made. He submits that in the notice, no indication has been given as to how the present petitioner was linked with the seizure of the contraband in this case. Hence, he submits that the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner was not stated in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.

7. He further submits that as regards notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, though it has been stated that the notice in respect of petitioner Md. Riyaj Khan, was sent to Md. Abdul Ali, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that whether the notice was received by the said person or not, however, no materials are there to show as to whether the said notice has been received by the addressee or not.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that at the time of preparation of arrest memo after the arrest of the petitioner, the signatures of independent witnesses were not obtained on the arrest memo as required under law and, therefore, he submits that there has been violation of mandatory statutory provisions of law which entitles them to get bail in this case.

9. In support of his submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the following cases :-

i. “Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Kerala reported in

2025 SCC online, SC 269” ;

ii. “Praveen Prakash Rao Vs. State of Kerala”

reported in 2009 (1) KLT 259 iii. “Prabir Purkaystha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934 iv. “Ahmed Mansoor Vs. State (represented by Assistant Commissioner of Police)” (Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025)

10. On the other hand, Ms. M. Deka, the learned standing counsel for the NCB