GAHC010010272026 2026:GAU-AS:2727 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Bail Appln./259/2026 TONGMINLUN LUPHENG AND ANR SON OF SEIJAPAO LUPHENG, R/O VILL- THANGKANGPHAL, P.O. SAIKUL, P.S. SAIKUL, DIST. SENAPATI, MANIPUR- 795118

2: THANGGUNSEM HAOKIP S/O HAOKHOLET HAOKIP R/O VILL- K. MONGJANG P.O. KUMBIPUKHRI P.S. CHURACHANDPUR DIST. CHURACHANDPUR MANIPUR- 795128 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING COUNSEL, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE ( DRI).

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, A GHOSAL,J SINGPHO Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NCB, SC, DRI,MR. S C KEYAL BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

ORDER

Date : 23.02.2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused-applicant. Also heard Mr.

S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for granting bail to the accused-applicants in connection with NDPS Case No.95/2025, corresponding to DRI Case No. 16/CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25, registered under Sections21(c)/22(c)/23(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, pending trial before learned Additional Session Judge No. 5, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on receipt of specific information, the officials of the DRI, Guwahati, apprehended one Renault Captur Car bearing Registration No. AS-01-DQ-4569, carrying substantial quantity of psychotropic drugs coming from Meghalaya side to Guwahati. The aforesaid vehicle was intercepted by the team of DRI officials near Khanapara Flyover, Kamrup (M) at about 19:00 hrs. On search of the vehicle, the DRI officials recovered 6(six) Kgs of Methamphetmine Tablets from the aforesaid car where both the accused-applicants were travelling. Accordingly, the DRI registered the case as DRI Case No. 16/ CL/NDPS/METH/DRI/GZU/2024-25, under the aforesaid Sections. The accused-applicants were arrested on 18.10.2024 and since then they are languishing behind the bar.

4. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that there is a total violation of Section 48 of BNSS, 2023, while arresting the accused-applicants by the DRI officials, which goes to the root of the process of arrest of the accused- applicants violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the mandates of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. He submits that the accused-applicants were not served with the notices under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023. He submits that though the Arrest Memo mentioned about intimating the wives of the accused-applicants by a telephonic call, the same cannot be termed as a notice under Section 48 of BNSS. He submits that by not serving proper notices under Section 48 of the BNSS, there is a clear violation of the ratios as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana & Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 as well as other cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that communication of Grounds of Arrest to the relatives of the accused-applicants are mandatory in nature, if not complied with, the same is a ground for granting bail to an arrested person. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicants submits that this is a fit case wherein the accused- applicants should be granted bail due to violation of Section 48 of BNSS and being not in terms of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases including the aforesaid case of Vihaan Kumar (supra). In support of his submission, the learned counsel has referred to couple of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, upholding the same principle.

5. On the other hand, Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, DRI, submits that the Arrest Memo clearly reveals that telephonic calls were made to the wives of the accused-applicants and the same have been ack