Oral Explanation of Arrest Grounds in Vernacular Complying with Section 48 BNSS Satisfies Constitutional Requirements.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the arrest was illegal due to the service of arrest notices in English, allegedly violating the procedural mandates of Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court held

The court answered the first issue in the negative, finding substantial compliance with Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS

It also directed

On the second issue, it held that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act were not overcome

The High Court rejected the prayer for bail and dismissed the petition

01Facts

On June 12, 2025, police intercepted a vehicle (AS-11EC-5747) following a telephonic tip regarding narcotics transportation. A search led to the recovery of commercial quantities of prohibited substances

p. 2

The petitioner, Somir Uddin, was arrested the same day and forwarded to judicial custody

p. 3

Following the filing of a charge-sheet on November 27, 2025, under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner moved for bail

p. 3

The petitioner challenged the legality of the arrest, asserting that the arrest notices under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS were in English—a language neither he nor his wife (the recipient of the notice) understood—thereby violating procedural safeguards

pp. 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the arrest was illegal due to the service of arrest notices in English, allegedly violating the procedural mandates of Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

pp. 3-4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail involving commercial quantities under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

p. 7

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 CrPC) for bail and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS regarding arrest procedures

pp. 2-3

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC Online SC 269), which mandates communicating grounds of arrest effectively in a language the person understands

p. 5

Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 1288), regarding the specific procedure for written grounds of arrest

p. 3

Crucially, the court applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which prohibits bail for commercial quantities unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty

p. 7

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 47 Section 48 Section 483

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 22 Section 25 Section 29 Section 37

04Reasoning

The court rejected the procedural challenge, noting that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that English is part of the curriculum in vernacular schools in Assam; thus, the petitioner’s claim of total ignorance was not inherently credible

p. 4

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (IO) recorded that the grounds were explained in Bengali, satisfying the requirement that the "substance" of the facts be communicated effectively

p. 4, 6

Regarding the wife's inability to understand English, the court found the argument contradictory because she signed an affidavit in English for the bail application without claiming it was translated to her; the court noted that if she didn't understand English, the bail application itself would be non-maintainable

p. 5

Regarding the Mihir Rajesh Shah precedent, the court held it was prospective (effective from November 6, 2025) and thus inapplicable to the petitioner's June 2025 arrest

p. 7

Finally, as a commercial quantity was recovered from the petitioner, the court found no "justifiable reason" to believe the petitioner was not guilty as required by the NDPS Act

p. 7