Bail Appln./1194/2026 of MOHAN NAMSUDRA ALIAS MOHAN NAMASUDRA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 23 June 2026

ORDER

24.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. P.P., Assam appearing for the State respondent.

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Mohan Namsudra @ Mohan Namasudra, praying for grant of bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No.34/2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act (Corresponding to Lumding GRPS Case No.13/2025) pending before the Special Judge, Hojai, Sankardev

Nagar. The petitioner along with co-accused were arrested on 29-04-2025.

3. The gist of the allegations in the FIR was that on 29-04-2025 an information was received about carrying of contraband by some persons in Kanchanjunga Express. Accordingly, team of GRPS proceeded and deboarded the present petitioner and the co-accused and the two bags that they were carrying were searched and suspected ganja of 12 kg was found from each of the bags totaling 24 kgs. They were arrested and subsequently forwarded for remand.

4. Mr. Ali, learned counsel submits that though the total quantity is stated to be 24 kgs but from each bag 12 kgs of suspected ganja were allegedly seized and looking at it from that point of view the individual quantity would perhaps fall in the bracket of intermediate quantity.

5. He also submits that no notice under Section 36 of BNSS was provided, as per his instruction. It is also submitted that notice under the section 48 BNSS which is required to be given to the family member of the arrestee has not been so given therefore, such non compliance vitiated arrest. It is also submitted that charges have been framed and the case is at the stage of trial and prosecution evidence is going on.

6. The scanned record is available.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that notice under section 36 BNSS is available in the record. It is also fairly submitted that the notice under section 48 is not found in the record - though, a copy of WT message sent by the IO for furnishing of the notice under 48 BNSS to the family member.

8. From the forwarding, it is revealed that WT message regarding notice under Section 48 BNSS was sent to the family member of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the WT message itself is not available in the record.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an order taken 28-10-2035 passed by this Court in BA 315-2035 and draws attention to paragraph 12 where it is stated as follows. “12. It is also contended that the notice under section 48 BNSS was sent by way of a WT Message and there is no material to indicate that it was conveyed to the relatives.”

10. In that case, this Court was pleased to grant bail to the accused for non-compliance with the notice under Section 48 BNSS.

11. Upon attention drawn by the Prosecution to the forwarding report in which it is stated - WT message sent to guardian as per notice under Section 48 BNSS and the accused Challan are duly enclosed with the forwarding report.

12. Upon perusing the materials, I find that like in the order of this Court relied upon by the petitioner side there are no materials to indicate that there has been compliance with the notice under Section 48 BNSS as is required in terms of the constitutional mandate (Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India) and the laws laid down in this regard by Hon’ble Supreme Court in {Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254: (2024) SCC Online SC 934 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) SCC Online SC 269.}

13. In these circumstances, this Court is constrained to come to the opinion that there is no proper compliance with the notice under Section 48 BNSS as is required in terms of the aforesaid legal position. Such being the situation, despite the penal provisions pertaining to commercial quantity, the accused is required to be granted bail as his arrest was vitiated due to such non-compliance and thereby violative of constitutional provisions under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

14. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused petitioner named above, shall be released on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- with one suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court subject to the following conditions:

(i) That the accused persons shall be available for the trial; if one commences;

(ii) That the accused persons shall not hamper or tamper with evidence;

(iii) That the accused persons shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activities. Violation of bail conditions will entail bail cancellation.

15. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant