Telephonic intimation of arrest to family fulfills statutory requirements under Sections 36 and 48 of BNSS.

The applicant was arrested on 14.07.2025 following an NCB operation that intercepted a vehicle at Nazirakhat Toll Plaza

Search of the vehicle revealed 10.858 kg of Methamphetamine tablets concealed in chassis cavities.

The applicant was implicated based on the disclosure statements of co-accused Yakub Ali and suspected involvement in a ₹20 lakh transaction for the contraband.

The applicant moved for bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, alleging he was in Guwahati for medical and business purposes and that his arrest violated mandatory procedural safeguards under the BNSS.

1. Whether the arrest of the applicant was illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act, considering the nature of the evidence and the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act

The court applied Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, which mandates the preparation of an Arrest Memo attested by a witness and countersigned by the accused.

It also applied Section 48 of the BNSS regarding the notification of arrest to family/friends.

Regarding the merits of the NDPS case, the court considered the evidentiary value of statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in light of *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu* (2021) 4 SCC 1, and the stringent conditions for bail involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act.

The Court examined the Trial Court Records (TCR) and found that the Arrest Memo was duly prepared with the signature of an independent witness, "A Mustafa," on the date of arrest.

Although the applicant claimed a language barrier, the Court noted he signed documents in English, suggesting proficiency.

Regarding Section 48 BNSS, the Court held that since the family resided in Manipur and the law-and-order situation was volatile, the telephonic intimation to the applicant's wife (Suraya Begum) followed by a subsequent written notice—admitted by the applicant’s counsel—constituted sufficient compliance.

On the merits, the Court found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement, specifically his proximity to the supplier (Jaheda) and the alleged payment of ₹20 lakhs.

The Court distinguished *Tofan Singh*, noting that at the bail stage, the applicant's involvement could not be ruled out given the specific materials on record.

Given the prima facie findings regarding the applicant’s involvement in trafficking a commercial quantity of narcotics, the Court found no merit in the bail prayer.

The bail application was rejected.