Somir Uddin vs The State Of Assam And Ors

Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010043842026

2026:GAU-AS:6082
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./622/2026
SOMIR UDDIN
SON OF LATE ABDUL SAHID, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATANALA PS
RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, DIST SRIBHUMI, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,

:::BEFORE:::
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Advocate for the petitioner : Mr. M. Ahmed.
Advocate for the respondent : Mr.R. J. Baruah.
Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 05.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : N/A
pronounced?

Page No.# 2/8
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J.
Baruah, learned Addl. PP for the State of Assam.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for
bail to the petitioner, who was arrested on 12.06.2025, in connection with the
Ratabri P.S Case No. 99/2025 registered under Section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.06.2025 the informant namely,
Danswrang Basumatary, Sub-Inspector of Police of Ratabari Police Station, has
lodged a written F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge of the Ratabari Police
Station, alleging inter alia that on the basis of the telephonic information
received from the Additional Superintendent of Police (HQ), Sribhumi, about the
transportation of large quantity of suspected narcotic substances by one vehicle
bearing Registration No. AS-11EC-5747, the informant had conducted a Naka
checking in front of Vetarbond AD Camp.
Accordingly, at around 2.30 Α.Μ. the vehicle was intercepted and after
conducting search, suspected narcotic substances was recovered there from. On
receipt the said F.I.R. dated 12.06.2025, the police of Ratabari Police Station has
registered the same as Ratabari Police Station Case No. 99/2025 under sections

Page No.# 3/8
22(c)/25/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
4. After registering the case vide Ratabari Police Station Case No. 99/2025,
the police of Ratabari Police Station has investigated the case and arrested
amongst others, the petitioner in connection with the instant case. Thereafter,
on 12.06.2025, the petitioner was forwarded before the Court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam. The petitioner was given in one day police
custody and on completion of the police custody, the petitioner was forwarded
again to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam, from
where he was sent to judicial custody and since then the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody.

5. The Charge-sheet has already been submitted on 27.11.25by the IO under
section 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, and accordingly, NDPS special case No.
63/25 was registered, and the matter is at the stage of charge hearing.
6. Apart from claiming innocence, the learned counsel has assailed the arrest
of the present petitioner on the ground of violation of Section 47 and 48 BNSS,
contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State
of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 and Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2025 INSC 1288.
7. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the notice

Page No.# 4/8
under section 47 issued to the present petitioner, which is in the English
language. It is contended that the petitioner does not understand the English
language and has only learned to sign his name in the English language and
that he is a school dropout who had studied up to fourth standard in Bengali
medium.
8. Firstly, there cannot be any universal proposition that a person who has
studied up to the fourth standard in a vernacular medium school in Assam
cannot understand the English language, inasmuch as English is very much a
part of the curriculum in vernacular medium schools all over Assam, a fact of
which judicial notice can be taken.

9. Moreover, although, the petitioner has signed the notice in the Bengali
language, the contents thereof have been explained to the accused in the
Bengali language.
10. The next contention is that the notice under section 48, though served on
the wife of the petitioner, namely, Amrita Begum , is in the English language,
which she does not understand as she is illiterate and, therefore, she put her
thumb impression on the said notice.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid notice would show that the IO has noted that
the grounds of arrest have been explained to the notice in the Bengali language.

Page No.# 5/8
Further, there is no averment in the instant bail application that the notice,
Amrita Begum, is not conversant with the English language, and a perusal of the
affidavit supporting the instant bail application reveals that it is in the English
language, wherein it has been stated that the deponent therein understood the
contents of the accompanying bail application, which are true to her knowledge
and information derived from records. There is no statement in the said affidavit
that, since she is not conversant with the English language, the contents of the
affidavit have been duly explained to her in the Bengali language.
Therefore, if it is to be believed that the deponent therein and notice of the
notice under section 48 BNSS does not understand the English language, the
bail application itself would be rendered non-maintainable, being unsupported
by a valid affidavit.
12. In Vihan Kumar (Supra) , it has been held in Para 21(b) by the Apex
Court as follows:
‘ The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested
person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person
effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of
communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is
achieved.’
It has been further held in Vihaan Kumar (supra) that the requirement of

Page No.# 6/8
communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested
person, but also to their friends, relatives, or such other relatives etc., so as to
make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective,
failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.
13. It may be noticed that the aforesaid decision does not require the police to
write the notice under Section 48 in a language the notice understands, but a
written notice is necessary. So long as the grounds of arrest are provided in a
manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds of
arrest is imparted and communicated effectively in a language which the notice
understands, the same would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of the
law.
14. In the instant case, the I.O has clearly stated in the notice that the
grounds of arrest have been explained in the Bengali language to the notice,
which has not been rebutted in the present bail application. Further, if the notice
is illiterate, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, the language in
which the notice u/s 48 BNSS is written is irrelevant.
15. Therefore, I am of the view that there has been substantial and sufficient
compliance with Section 48, as necessitated in the light of the decision in
Vihaan Kumar (supra) .

Page No.# 7/8

16. Furthermore, the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah, which was delivered on
06.11.2025, appears to be prospective in operation inasmuch as in paragraph
58 of the said Judgment, it has been held as follows:-
‘ The ends of fairness and legal discipline therefore demand that this procedure
as affirmed above shall govern arrests henceforth .’
Since the accused/petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2025, the benefit of the said
decision would not be extended to the present petitioner.
17. The Division Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has also held in a
recent decision in Karan Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi reported in 2026
DHC 570 DB that the decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) is prospective
in operation.
18. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find force in the
submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
19. The contraband, which amounts to a commercial quantity, was prima facie
recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would be attracted.

20. On perusal of the material on record, I find no justifiable reason to
entertain the belief that the petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged offense
of possession and transportation of a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs.

Page No.# 8/8

21. In view of the above discussion, the prayer for bail stands rejected, and
the petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant