BNSS | Gauhati High Court Upholds Telephonic Intimation Of Arrest To Accused's Family, Notes No Prejudice Caused

The Gauhati High Court refused to grant bail to an NDPS accused who had claimed violation of arrest procedure under BNSS, after finding that his family who lived in Manipur were informed of the arrest via telephonic intimation and there was subsequent service of written notice under section 48 of BNSS. Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, noted that at the time of the accused's arrest in Guwahati, his wife was intimated about his arrest over the telephone call as she is a resident of a village in Manipur. The court further noted that a document to that effect was prepared which "mentioned that Grounds of Arrest of the Accused Applicant were explained by him to his wife and the contents were admitted by the Accused Applicant by putting his signature on that". The court further noted that the receipt of the Written Notice containing details of Grounds of Arrest under Section 48 BNSS on a later date, though not at the time of his arrest, was also admitted by the counsel for the petitioner. It thus said:“Therefore, no pre-judice seems to have caused to the Accused Applicant at the time of his arrest. Since none of the family members or friends reside in Guwahati and all being residents in Manipur and taking into account the prevailing law and order situation in Manipur at that point of time, an admitted telephonic intimation and subsequent service of written notice under section 48 of BNSS, which has been specifically admitted by the learned Counsel for the Accused Applicant, cannot be termed as non-compliance of Section 48 of BNSS.”The bail application was filed under Section 483 of the BNSS seeking release of the accused Abdul Kalam, who was arrested in a case registered under Section 8(c) read with Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.As recorded by the Court, the prosecution case was that an NCB officer received secret information that three persons from Manipur would be trafficking approximately 10 kilograms of methamphetamine tablets in a car travelling toward Guwahati. Acting on the information, the NCB team intercepted the vehicle and the occupants were apprehended, after which the vehicle was taken to a workshop. During further search, the officials allegedly recovered 50 packets of methamphetamine tablets weighing 10.858 kg from concealed cavities in the chassis of the vehicle. On the basis of the seizure, investigation was initiated and the present applicant was subsequently arrested. The complaint was later filed before the Sessions (Special) Judge, and registered as an NDPS Case.It was contended by the accused that he had travelled to Guwahati for personal reasons and had only accompanied a co-accused. It was argued that his implication was based on disclosure statements and a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It was further contended that there was violation of Sections 36 and 48 BNSS inasmuch as the arrest memo did not bear proper signatures and intimation was not given to family members at the time of arrest.The Court, however, examined the arrest records and the materials placed in the trial court record and found that the arrest memo detailed the grounds of arrest and carried the signature of an independent witness. The Court further noted that the accused had signed the documents and that his wife had been informed of the arrest through a telephone call at the time of arrest, with written notice being served later.The Court observed, “It is further seen that allegation of payment of Rs. 20 lakhs by one Nazim Uddin, an accomplice of the Accused Applicant to one Jaheda, the alleged supplier of the aforesaid seized contraband Yaba tablets. It is seen that the Mobile Phone No of Jaheda, i.e. 9707776069 was given to the NCB officials by the Accused Applicant himself. Therefore, at this stage, the involvement of the Accused Applicant in the alleged offence cannot be ruled out.”“In view of the aforesaid prima facie findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Accused Applicant's prayer for bail does not have any merit and hence, the same is rejected at this stage,” the Court concluded.Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed.Case Title: Abdul Kalam v. The Union of IndiaCase Number: Bail Appln./4113/2025Click Here To Read Judgement

BNSS | Gauhati High Court Upholds Telephonic Intimation Of Arrest To Accused's Family, Notes No Prejudice Caused

Bhavya Singh

Tags