Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The Union Of India on 25 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010130482025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1982/2025
SRI REUBEN KAMLALSON AND ANR
S/O- LATE NEKMINLUN,
VILLAGE- MUOLVAIPHEI, P.O AND P.S -LAMKA, DISTRICT-
CHURCHANDPUR, MANIPUR- 795128
2: SRI LALROHLUN
S/O- LATE DUOILO.
VILLAGE -313 SESAWNG II
P.O- SESAWNG
P.S -BAWNGKAWN
DISTRICT- AIZAWL
MIZORAM PIN-79601
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SC DRI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R RONGMEI, M N RONGMEI,D GONMEI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 25.07.2025
1. Heard Mrs. R. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard
Page No.# 2/3
Mr. D. Bora, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the DRI.
2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the
petitioners, namely, 1. Reuben Kamlalson and 2. Lalrohlun, who has been
detained behind the bars since 18.02.2025 in connection with DRI Case No.
27/CL/NDPD/HEROIN/DRI/GZU/2024-25 under Section 21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on receipt of an information
through reliable sources, a search operation was conducted and a vehicle
bearing Registration No. ML-01-AC-8843 was intercepted and the petitioners
were found in the said vehicle. On the search of the said vehicle, 739.19 grams
of suspected heroin was recovered from the possession of the present
petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking bail in this case, mainly on the
ground of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. She submits that
though the petitioners were served with the notice under Section 47 of BNSS,
however, the relatives/friends/nominated person by the petitioners were not
served with any notice under Section 48 of BNSS. She submits that in pursuant
to the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of ” Vihaan Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” there is also mandate of
furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives of the arrestee.
5. On the other hand, learned senior standing counsel DRI has countered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has
produced the case diary and has submitted that the notice under Section 48 of
the BNSS was issued to the relatives of the petitioners on the date arrest itself
Page No.# 3/3
and it was posted through speed post as the relatives were inhabitants of the
State of Manipur.
6. It is also submitted that the learned senior standing counsel for the
DRI that the notice was received by one Smt. Pari, who is the mother of the
petitioner No. 1 and for the petitioner No. 2 same has been received by one
Lalthasaung.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
both sides and have perused the case diary which was produced by the learned
senior standing counsel for the DRI.
8. On perusal of case diary, it appears that returned notices under
Sections 47 as well as 48 were issued in this case as mandated by Article 22 of
the Constitution of India and therefore, prima facie, it appears that there has
been no violation of said constitutional mandate.
9. Moreover, as the quantity of contraband seized in this case is of
commercial quantity, the embargo of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable,
which the petitioners have failed to overcome.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby
rejected.
11. Send back the case diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant