Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030003732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./24/2025 Sh. Vanlalchhandama Champhai Venglai VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Zoramchhana Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 17-07-2025 Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is a bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS r/w Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 for the enlargement of the petitioner on bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner along with another co-accused named Rampanmawia of Champhai Vengsang, Page No.# 2/6 Champhai District, Mizoram was arrested on 25.09.2024 by the Excise Personnel for the alleged possession of commercial quantity of white powder suspected to be Heroin at Zemabawk, Aizawl and thereafter, the case bearing Session Case No. 23/2024 A/o Excise Case No. Ex. 172/2024 under Section 21(c) ND&PS Act, 1985 was registered against the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial of the case has commenced. However, since there is a violation of Section 50 CrPC at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He submitted that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner was not duly informed to him as mandated by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 8 SCC 254 (para 29 & 48), wherein the Apex Court had stated that:- “48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey Page No.# 3/6 to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.” 5. The learned counsel has also relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SC Online 269 (para 26), wherein the Apex Court had stated that:- 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3. When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the investigating officer/agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the Page No.# 4/6 investigation, charge-sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of charge- sheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. 6. The learned counsel submitted that in not conforming to the requirements of informing the petitioner on the grounds of arrest as laid down by the Apex Court, the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution has been violated and thus, entitled to be released on bail. 7. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that on the perusal of the arrest memo, it clearly shows that the grounds of arrest have been specified and copies of the same has also been furnished to the petitioner and the co-accused and therefore, there is no violation of Section 50/Section 47 BNSS and therefore, considering the huge amount seized from the petitioner which is 510 grams of Heroin kept in 41 soap cases and also considering the fact that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner, wherein the prosecution is likely to prove the guilt of the petitioner, there were no grounds for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also submits that a perusal of the arrest memo shows that the grounds of arrest have also been informed to the Page No.# 5/6 relatives of the accused petitioner. 8. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties and has also perused the documents on record. 9. It is seen that the seizure and arrest memo has been exhibited as Exhibit P-10 in the TCR which was called for and it is seen that the Arrest Memo contains the details of how on “25/09/2024 at 5:20 am at Zemabawk near Pushpak the accused petitioner was arrested on the seizure of the following articles:- Name & add. of accused Seized articles 1. Vanlalchhandama (42) 1. 510 gm of heoin kept in S/o R. Lalbiakthanga 44 soap cases (19-Blue, 13- Champhai Venglai Maroon, 4-green, 4-white, 2-black, 2-olive green) further kept in 4 bundles. Two bundles i.e. 22 soap cases was kept in star spotted bag. Seized soap cases are marked as S-1 to S-44. 2. Rampanmawia (22) 2. Wagon R LMV B.R. No. S/o Rimawiliana (L) MZ 04 A 4510 with its R.C & Champhai Tlangsang key which was used for transporting & storing heroin. Two bundles (kept in bag) was recovered from the roadside where the vehicle was halted. Two bundles i.e. 22 soap cases were recovered on the floor of the front passenger seat of the seized vehicle. All the 4 bundles were wrapped with black polythene and transparent polythene. Intimation and ground of arrest were given to relatives of accused no. 1 & no 2 via mobile no. 6909883124 & 7005674691 respectively. Hash value of the videos taken was also recorded. Seized articles marked as S-1 to S-16 = 11 gm each, S-17 = 10 gm, S-18 to Page No.# 6/6 S-44 = 12 gm each. Colour of the seized heroin is mixed of Red, Orange & White powder.” 10. Thus, it is seen that all the details regarding the seizure of the seized articles have been highlighted which necessitated the arrest of the accused petitioner and thus affording the accused petitioner to defend himself by engaging a counsel. It is also seen that copy of the same has been duly furnished to the petitioner and also to the family members of the petitioner through the mobile phone of the family members/relatives of the petitioner. This court therefore finds that when all the grounds under which the petitioner has been arrested is mentioned in the arrest memo and duly furnished to him, it cannot be said that there is a violation of Section 50 CrPC/47 BNSS, wherein this court finds that the grounds of arrest as specified by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (Supra) and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Supra) have been conformed with. 11. For the above reasons, the instant bail application stands dismissed and disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant