Bail Appln./1238/2026 of ABDUL HALIM Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 24 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State. Invoking 483 BNSS, the accused petitioner, herein, who is arrested on 26.01.2026 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case

No.35/2026 arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 10/2026, under Section 22(C)/25 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is seeking regular bail. The allegation was about recovery of a large number of psychotropic substances by way of Yaba tablets from the apprehended accused person, the petitioner herein. He was arrested on 26.01.2026. The case was charge-sheeted after completion of investigation, presently, pending for consideration of charge. The outset, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel, has drawn attention, has taken this Court to copy of the notice under Section 48 BNSS annexed with the petition and submitted that it is not addressed to any particular person and does not bear the signature of any family member or nominated person. Upon perusing the notice, I find that it narrates in sufficient detail the brief of the case and the grounds of arrest. However, it is true that it is not addressed to any person nor does it bear any signature. The scanned record is available, from which the prosecution points out the W.T. message regarding the said notice under 48 BNSS sent to the O/C of Suti P.S. in Murshidabad, district of West Bengal. The Badarpur police has made the effort to narrate the grounds in the notice under 48 BNSS and also send the W.T. messages but the said compliance still falls short of the of the constitutional requirement under Article 22 and the laws laid there under by the Honourable Supreme Court (Reference: Vihaan Kumar). The I/O is required to gather some materials about conveying of the notice to nominated person or family member and in the event of refusal get an endorsement regarding the same. Such procedural aspects need to be followed scrupulously, especially in serious cases like the instant one, having significant bearing on society. In the instant case, in view of the finding that the aforesaid compliance is inadequate and would not meet the requisite standards, the further under trial detention or the petition has to be interfered with in this bail petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom should be from the state of Assam to the satisfaction of the learned Jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) He shall not abscond.

(ii) He shall be available for trial if once commences.

(iii) He shall not hamper or tamper evidence including refrain from committing any illegal activities under the NDPS Act. The learned Addl. P.P. submits that it is very necessary for the police of Investigating Officers to address such notices properly. A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned Addl. P.P.

for onward transmission to the learned S.P. of Sribhumi. Bail application stands allowed and disposed of. Send back the case diary.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant