Page No.# 1/ GAHC030000682025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4/2025 Sh. Thangchunga S/o. Sh. Ralhrea P/A Model Veng, Hnahthial District, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mrs. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram ORDER B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI 14.02.2025 Heard Mrs. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/ 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS read with Section 37 of ND&PS Act, 1985 to release on bail the accused applicant i.e, Sh. Thangchunga who was arrested on 18.05.2023 in connection with SR No. 334/2023 A/o. Special Narcotic P.S. Case No. N-33/23 registered under 21 (c)/29 of the ND&PS act, 1985. 3. The facts of the case is that, upon receipt of information that some unknown persons were strongly suspected of possessing contraband drugs at the area of Zarkawt, Aizawl, Mizoram, written information report was submitted to the Jurisdictional Officer-in-Charge and the said officer alongwith the Police party immediately went to the location where they conducted search and seizure and upon search, 414 grams of suspected heroine was recovered from possession of the petitioner alongwith the co-accused and the same was seized and accordingly, a case was registered. 4. Mrs. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been violation of Section 52A of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and hence the arrest is illegal. 5. She further submits that the quantity seized is less and therefore, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. She further submits that out of the six (6) prosecution witnesses up till now only 2 (two) has been examined by the Trial Court and the matter has been lingering for several dates before the Trial Court. 6. She further submits that the medical condition of the petitioner and his wife is not good and hence, he be enlarged on bail. 7. Par contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. She further submits that during interrogation, the petitioner has clearly admitted that upon being search by the Page No.# 3/ Police party, he had produced the seized contraband articles from the bag that he was carrying. 8. She further draws the attention of the Court to the evidence of the Police Officer who deposed before the Trial Court as PW-1 wherein he has clearly deposed that when the petitioner was searched, he took out the bag which he was carrying and from there he took out the contraband articles. 9. She further submits that at the time of consideration of bail, violation of the procedures prescribed in the ND&PS Act, 1985 is of no relevance and in support of the aforesaid, she relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kashif reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3848 (para 39, sub-clause 6). 10. I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record including the case laws cited at the bar. 11. It appears that when the petitioner was searched by the Police party, he had handed over the contraband articles weighing about 414 grams to the Police officials from a bag which he was carrying. It further appears that the Police Officer has proved the same by deposing before the Trial Court as PW-1. It further appears that the said evidence of the PW-1 was not shaken by the accused. 12. It further appears that the Trial is going on and out of the six (6) witnesses, two (2) witnesses have already been examined. It thus appears that the Trial Court is likely to be concluded soon. 13. The contention of Mrs. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that there has been violation of the provisions contained in ND&PS Act, 1985 is yet to be proved before the Trial Court and therefore has Page No.# 4/ no reference at this stage. Paragraph 39 (iv) of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Khasif (Supra) is extracted here under for ready reference: “Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the ND&PS Act”. 14. In such bail petition where the offence is under the ND&PS Act, 1985 which is cognizable and also involves commercial quantity, it is provided under Section 37 of the said Act that when the Public Prosecutor opposed the application, the Court only when is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail shall release the accused on bail. 15. That being so, the contraband articles having been seized from the possession of the petitioner and that too of commercial quantity, this Court cannot be said to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence. 16. It further appears from the ‘arrest/court surrender form’ dated 18.05.2023 that the Investigating Officer has observed that the petitioner is likely to escape bail and that if he is release on bail, he is likely to commit crime or threaten victim witnesses. 17. Hence, taking totality of the circumstances of the entire case in hand, I am of the unhesitant view that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. Page No.# 5/ 18.`Accordingly, the Bail Petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant