Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030008342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./58/2025 Sh. Nicky Vanlalhmuaka S/o Lalthanzauva, Electric Veng, Kolasib VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram. 2. This is application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Nicky Vanlalhmuaka seeking bail in connection Page No.# 2/8 with SC(K) No. 13/2025 arising out of Excise Case No. KLB/199/2025 under Sections 21(b) and 29(1) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 3. Scan copy of the TCR along with the Case Diary has already been received. I have perused the same. 4. Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and has not committed any such offences as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 47 & 48 BNSS which violates the mandates of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. At the time of issuing the notice except the name and sections of the Case No. there is any grounds of arrest specifically mentioned in the arrest memo and the notice issued under Section 47 & 48 of BNSS. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this case is of intermediate quantity and as per the allegation some quantity of heroin was seized from his possession and on the basis of his statement another co-accused has already been arrested from whom also some quantity of heroin was alleged to have been seized by the Police. Accused got arrested in connection with this case on 07.04.2025 and since then, he is in custody. The case is already been charge-sheeted on 05.06.2025 and out of 8 nos. of cited witnesses, 4 were already been examined by the prosecution. 5. He further submitted that the remaining 4 witnesses are the official witnesses and hence there cannot be any question of hampering or tampering with the evidence of remaining witnesses. He further submitted that as the case is registered under Sections 21(b)/29(1) NDPS which is of intermediate quantity and hence rigor of Section 37 of NDPS will also not Page No.# 3/8 follow in the present case. Referring to the state notification dated 27.06.2025, it is submitted that the State of Mizoram has already issued notification with a direction to the arresting authority that while arresting any person and at the time of issuing arrest memo atleast signature of one witnesses from his family member or a respectable person from that locality which has to be counter-signed by the accused itself. But from the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS as well as from the arrest memo it is seen that there is no such compliance as required under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS as well as 36 of the BNSS. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused is a daily wage earner and there is no one to look after his family and that apart, he being a permanent resident of the addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding even if the accused/petitioner is granted with the privilege of bail. He further submitted that as the rigors of Section 37 is not attracted in the present case the only ground for detaining the accused/petitioner is to secure his attendance. 6. In that context he had also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported vide 2012 1 SCC 40 Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and basically emphasize on para 22 of the said Judgment which read as under. “22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that Page No.# 4/8 any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.’’ 7. He further submitted that as from the notice and the arrest memo itself it is seen that there is complete violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as per the guideline issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) the written grounds of arrest has to be communicated to the person concerned who is arrested and the family members of a person is also to be intimated about the ground of arrest. Citing the above referred judgment, it is submitted that considering the above ground, the accused/petitioner may be allowed to go on bail, however, being the local person will provide sufficient security and will abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed on him. 8. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the accused/petitioner caught red-handed by selling heroin and on the basis of his statement, the co-accused/the owner of the contraband was also got arrested in connection with this case. She further submitted that there are sufficient compliance of Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS and from the notice itself, it is seen that there is the mention about the ground of arrest in the notice issued under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS. She further submitted that out of 8 nos. of prosecution witnesses, 4 has already been examined and considering the nature of offence committed by the accused/petitioner, his further incarceration will be required for the trial of the case. Accordingly, she raised vehement objection and submitted that Page No.# 5/8 the Bail Application of the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 9. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case records, including the annexures filed along with this petition. 10. It is an admitted position that the accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 07.04.2025 and since then, he is in custody, it is also an admitted fact that the case is registered and charged under Section 21(b)/29(1) of the NDPS Act and thus the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will not be attracted in the present case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of arrest there was no proper compliance Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS and there was no written communication of grounds of arrest at the time of issuing notice under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, and thus it is a clear violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. But hearing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the co- accused of this case got arrested in connection with this case only after the arrest of the present petitioner and as per his statement the co-accused who is the owner of the contraband was also arrested on the basis of statement made by the present petitioner. More so, it is seen that the present accused/petitioner was caught red handed while he was selling heroin. And thus, it cannot be held that he was not aware of the ground of arrest in the present case rather, it is the petitioner who led the arresting authority for recovering of the remaining contraband from the possession Page No.# 6/8 of the co-accused. In the same time, it is also seen that the grounds of the notice under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS were issued to the present petitioner however, it cannot be denied that there was no specific mentioned about the grounds of arrest in the notice issued under Section 47 & 48 BNSS. Thus, it is seen that there is substantial compliance of Section 47 & 48 to fulfill the object of furnishing the grounds of arrest, and the grounds of arrest are not in flexible requirement in all circumstances. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Darshan (supra) reported vide 2025 0 SCC 1201, in paras 20.1.2, 20.1.3, 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 had expressed the view that the substantial compliance is sufficient unless, demonstrable prejudice is shown the paras stated above are read as under:- 20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that "no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice". Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that "every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to Page No.# 7/8 sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 13. Here in the instant case also it is seen that the accused was aware of his grounds of arrest and he is a person who led the police for seizure of the other contraband from the possession of the co-accused and that a notice under Section 47 & 48 are also issued though, there are no specific mention about the grounds of arrest. But, considering the present circumstances of this case it cannot be held that the accused as not aware about his grounds of arrest. 14. But it is also a fact the accused/petitioner is in custody since last 9 (nine) months and out of 8 witnesses 4 witnesses have already been examined and from the report as well as from the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the official witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, there cannot be any possibility of hampering or tampering with the evidences of the witnesses to be examined. 15. Only considering this aspect of the case vis-à-vis the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention may not be required for the completion of the trial and entitles for the privilege of bail. 16. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. Page No.# 8/8 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, Mizoram subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, Mizoram, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, Mizoram and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, Mizoram. 17. In view of the above, this Bail Appln. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant