Surjit Singh vs Union Of India

Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010024452026

2026:GAU-AS:5252

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./408/2026
SURJIT SINGH
SON OF SARDOOL SINGH
RESIDENT OF KUKRA, POST BANKEYGANJ KUKRA, P.O. KUKRA, P.S.
MAILANI, DIST. KHERI, UTTAR PRADESH-262801.
ANOTHER ADDRESS- GRANT NO. 3, POST HINDUSTAN FARM DIST. KHERI,
UTTAR PRADESH-262801
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
NARCOTICS CONROL BUREAU, REPRESENTED BY THE STANDING
COUNSEL, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. P.K. Saharia .

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. R.K. Dev Choudhury,
SC, NCB.

Date on which judgment was reserved : 06.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.04.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
operative part of the judgment?

Page No.# 2/5
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. P.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
R.K. Dev Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel for the NCB.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting
bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Surjit Singh, who was arrested on
03.08.2024, in connection with NDPS Case no. 01/2025 arising out of NCB
Guwahati Crime No. 08/2024 under Section 20(b)(ii) (c) of the NDPS Act,
pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Rangia, Assam.
3. The facts as revealed by the FIR is that on 02.08.2024 at around 8.35 p.m.
a truck bearing registration number PB06AU9134 was seen coming from Tezpur
side and the driver of the truck parked near a roadside dhaba and restaurant
Barpalaha, Mangaldoi road, Kamrup there was only one person in the truck who
was its driver, that is the present petitioner Surjit Singh, who upon being
questioned gave his address and thereafter informing the petitioner about prior
information regarding transportation of contraband received by the NCB, search
was carried out on the said truck in the presence of witnesses and as revealed
by the petitioner, a specially made cavity in the loading area just behind the
truck was discovered in which packets of ganja had been concealed and the
same was searched and 90 packets of ganja was recovered therefrom. After
completion of investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted on
29.01.2025 under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 28, 29, 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act and
the case is at the stage of consideration of charge.

Page No.# 3/5
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the arrest of the
petitioner on the ground that the investigating agency has violated the
provisions of section 47 and 48 of BNSS while arresting the petitioner. A perusal
of the notice under section 47 BNS says does not reveal any grounds of arrest
mentioned therein. However as contended by learned Standing Counsel for the
NCB, the said grounds of arrest has been duly reflected in the memorandum of
arrest which has been signed by the petitioner. It is also stated in the
memorandum of arrest as follows: “I have informed my son that is Zoban Preet
Singh through my mobile phone on number 9044835808.” And the signature of
the petitioner appears there under the aforesaid statement.
5. Furthermore, a perusal of the voluntary statement of the
accused/petitioner and recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act on
03.08.2024, that is on the same date as the date of his arrest, which was
recorded in the Hindi language and signed by the petitioner would clearly reveal
that the petitioner was more than aware of the grounds of his arrest.
6. In view of the above, I find that the grounds of arrest have been duly
communicated in writing to the accused/petitioner in a language which he
clearly understood and therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of
section 47 BNSS.
7. As far as compliance with section 48 is concerned, it is seen that the
address of the petitioner is at Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner
has also stated in his arrest memo that he has informed his son over mobile
phone regarding his arrest.
8. The NCB had also sent a communication to the officer in charge of the
concerned police station stating the grounds of arrest of the petitioner with a

Page No.# 4/5
request to the addressee to intimate the family members of the petitioner.
However, there is no record available as to whether the same was
communicated, as requested, by the concerned officer in charge of the local
police station.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported
in 2025 INSC 162 wherein it was held that the grounds of arrest must be
communicated in writing to the family members/friends/person nominated by
the accused and failure to do so may render the arrest illegal.
10. In Amir Khan and Ors. vs. Union of India reported in GAHC
010132822025 this court had held that the decision in Vihaan Kumar
(Supra) would operate prospectively by holding as follows:
“It is the considered view of this Court that since it has been specifically
stated in Pankaj Bansal (supra) that the requirement of furnishing of
grounds of arrest in writing to the accused would only have prospective
operation and as the subsequent judgment in Vihaan Kumar (supra) on
the same issue did not mention otherwise, the additional requirement of
furnishing the grounds of arrest to the relatives/friends/nominated
persons of the accused introduced therein would also have to be read in
prospective terms, in the absence of any stipulation otherwise, in view
of the fact that giving of retrospective operation in the later case with
regard to the requirement of furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing
to the accused person would nullify the effect of Pankanj Bansal
(supra), wherein only prospective operation of such requirement has

Page No.# 5/5
been stipulated. Furthermore, since the requirement of furnishing the
grounds of arrest to the accused person has been made prospective,
similar requirement in respect of furnishing of grounds of arrest in
writing to the relatives/friends/nominated persons can hardly be held to
be a requirement to be insisted upon retrospectively. From that point of
view as well, it appears that it was not mandatory for the investigating
agency to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the
relatives/friends/nominated persons since the occurrence took place
prior to the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra).”
11. The aforesaid decision was rendered on 07.02.2025, and the arrest of the
petitioner took place long back on 03.08.2024 and therefore, the said decision
does not aid the petitioner. Therefore, even if there has been any violation of
section 48, the same would not render the arrest of the petitioner illegal for the
reasons aforesaid.
12. In view of the above and the fact that a commercial quantity of
contraband drugs was recovered from the conscious position of the petitioner,
there is no reason to hold the view that the petitioner may not be guilty of the
alleged offence and therefore, the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act also
squarely applies in the present case.
13. In view of the, what has been discussed above, the prayer for bail stands
rejected and the bail petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant