Bail Appln./775/2026 of DHANANJOY BARMAN AND ANR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 26.06.2026

Heard Mr. S.C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. M. Deka, learned counsel for the DRI.

2. By this application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Dhananjoy Barman and Pintu Debbarma, have prayed for bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 36/2024 (corresponding to Departmental Case No. 02/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2023-24) u/s 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, pending in the court learned Sessions/Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.

3. The petitioners were arrested on 08-09-2023 and since then they have been under trial detention, presently in judicial custody.

4. The gist of the allegations is about recovery of a large volume of psychotropic substances in the form of methamphetamine tablets (Yaba tablets), concealed in the cabin of a truck, which was intercepted on the highway.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has two contentions. Firstly, that the petitioners is in custody since 2023 encompassing more than 1000 days and that in the meantime, trial is not yet complete. It is submitted that only 3(three) witnesses have been examined and the cross- examination of 2(two) witnesses is not yet completed. Another contention of the petitioners’ side is non-compliance with the Notice under section 48 BNSS.

6. The scanned TCR, as called for, has been received.

7. Ms. Deka, learned counsel for the DRI submits that the trial has progressed and only 2(two) witnesses remain to be examined. It is also submitted – referring to the decisions of State of Punjab vs. Gurjit Singh @ Geetu, reported in 2023 Legal Eagle (SC) 376 and Saheb Sahani vs. The Union of India, reported in 2025:GAU-AS:8962 – that mere long incarceration may not give the right to the petitioners to be granted bail invoking the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, when the statutory restrictions like section 37 of the NDPS Act applied.

8. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the rival submissions. It is no longer res integra that compliance with the Notice under section 48 BNSS is mandatory, failing which the continued under trial detention of the accused would become untenable.

9. The Notice under 48 BNSS in the form that is required as per the governing law has not been placed for this Court to show proper compliance of the same. However, a statement of each of the accused persons has been placed for the Court in which they have stated that they have been allowed to contact family member regarding the arrest in the case on mobile phone. 10 Needless to say that the said mode of intimation would not fulfill the requirement of the law that prevails today regarding such compliance of Notice under section 48 BNSS. Therefore, the further under trial detention of the petitioners would be untenable and they have to be granted bail at this stage, subject to conditions.

11. Accordingly, the accused-petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with NDPS Case No. 36/2024 (corresponding to Departmental Case No. 02/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2023-24) u/s 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one suitable surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court (Sessions/Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar).

12. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions:

(a) That the petitioners shall not abscond; (b) That the petitioners shall be available during the remaining trial;

(c) That the petitioners shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; (d) That the petitioners shall not intimidate or harass or try to influence any witnesses; and (e) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any illegal activity, including under the NDPS Act.

13. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail.

14. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant