Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India on 23 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010000482026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./76/2026
CHINGKHEINGANBA MEITEI AND ANR
SON OF- NGANGOM SHYAMBABU MEITEI, RESIDENT OF VILL.-
UYUMPOK, P.O.- PANGEI, P.S.- SAGOLMANG, DISTRICT- IMPHAL EAST,
MANIPUR. PIN-795114.
2: YUMKHAIBAM BABUCHOUBA ALIAS YUMKHAIBAM DAVIDSON SINGH
SON OF- Y. SUBASH SINGH
RESIDENT OF VILL.- UYUMPOK
P.O.- PANGEI
P.S.- SAGOLMANG
DISTRICT- IMPHAL EAST
MANIPUR. PIN795114
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
Date : 23-03-2026
Heard Mr. L.R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Page No.# 2/5
Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the DRI.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS praying for bail to the
petitioner in connection with Departmental Case No. 04/CL/NDPS/DRI/SIL/2024-
25 dated 23.11.2024 under Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 which has
culminated in N.D.P.S. Case No. 42/2025 pending before the Learned Court of
District and Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners
were taken into custody on 23.11.2024 and have been languishing in custody till
today. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the arrest of
the petitioners have been in violation of the provisions of Section 36, 47 and 48
of the BNSS, 2023 and therefore, the continued custody of the petitioners are in
violation of the constitutional rights under Article 21(1) and 22(2) of the
Constitution of India. The learned counsel has submitted that the arrest memo
of the petitioners does not contain the signature of any independent witness or
the family and relative of the petitioners. Further, the notice under Section 47
and 48 of the BNSS were also not served upon the petitioners and his
family/relative/friend respectively and therefore, there is a complete violation of
the mandatory provision of law.
4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel appearing for the DRI has submitted that
the grounds of arrest were explained and recorded in clear terms in the arrest
memo and the copies of the arrest memo has been communicated to their next
of kin as reflected in the memo of arrest itself. The learned counsel has further
submitted that the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police in Manipur had also
been intimated, about the arrest of the petitioners, with the request to him to
inform the family members of the petitioners. He has submitted that there is
Page No.# 3/5
substantial compliance of the provisions and therefore, the petitioners would not
be entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage.
5. The learned counsel for the DRI has placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court pronounced on 06.01.2026 in WP(Crl.) No. 50/2025 to assert that
when the memorandum of arrest is served upon the arrested person and the
petitioner is allowed to intimate their relatives over mobile phone, there is
substantial compliance of the provisions of law. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that when there is no notice under Section 47 of the
BNSS given to the petitioner and when it is not the case of the respondents that
the notice under Section 48 of the CrPC had been furnished to the family
members/relative or friend of the petitioners, the findings of this Court in
WP(Crl.) No. 50/2025 could not be relevant to the present case.
6. This Court has gone through the scan copy of the TCR and the arguments
made at the bar. This Court has noticed that there is no record to show that the
notice under Section 48 of the CrPC had been served upon the family/friend or
relative of the arrested person of the petitioners and there is only a record of
sending information to the Superintendent of Police by speed post on
23.11.2024. Ironically, the proof of sending it by speed post has not been
produced before this Court. Although it may be correct that the petitioners had
informed about the arrest of the wife and father respectively, the same cannot
be held to be compliance provisions under Section 48 of the BNSS. The arrest
memo does not contain the signatures of any independent witness. This Court,
in view of the aforesaid violation that the constitutional rights of the petitioner
has been violated in the present case.
7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
Page No.# 4/5
However, the petitioners have proclaimed themselves to be residents of a
locality beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court. In the
aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that strict conditions of
releasing the petitioners on bail are required to be imposed to ensure
participation in the Trial Court. This court therefore directs that the petitioners
be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh and
fifty thousand only) each with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, at
least one of who shall be a government servant serving either with the State
Government or with the Central Government and at least one who should have
immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar,
Silchar under the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned
Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar without prior written permission;
ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the
case;
iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any and if not already
surrendered before the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode
including telephone, social media etc.
vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof
Page No.# 5/5to the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar and shall not change the said
residence without prior permission of the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar.
The Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar shall be at liberty to have the same
verified in such manner as may be deemed fit.
vii) The petitioner shall appear before the Learned Special Judge, Cachar,
Silchar as and when required to do so and in case of default, the Learned TRail
Court shall be at liberty to form such opinion, including an opinion that the
petitioner is trying to delay or escape the trial and on forming such opinion, the
learned Trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner;
viii) the Learned Special Judge, Cachar, Silchar shall be at liberty to
impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to
ensure the participation of the petitioner in the Trial.
ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in
the future.
x) The prosecution shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the
conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a
recall/cancellation of bail.
8. The bail petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
