Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030004112025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./27/2025 Sh. Lalthazuala Thingthelh Veng, Kolasib VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 22-07-2025 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application for the release of the accused/petitioner on bail under Section 483 BNSS r/w Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, on the arrest of the petitioner on 03.08.2023 in connection with the recovery of 220 soap cases containing suspected Heroin from two nylon bags covered with a green Silpauline and charged under Section 21(c) of the ND&&PS Act in SR No. 9/2024 Page No.# 2/7 A/o Excise Case No. 214/2023. 3. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the petitioner has been incarcerated at Central Jail since 03.08.2023 which is almost 2 years. She submitted that the case has been charge sheeted and out of 8 prosecution witnesses, 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined and the remaining 2 prosecution witnesses are the Seizing Officer and the Case IO. She submits that at the time of arrest of the accused petitioner, a copy of the seizure memo was not duly furnished to him as mandated by the Apex Court. The learned counsel also submits that PW No.2 who is the independent seizure witness, in his cross examination had stated that the arresting officer did not inform the accused persons the grounds of arrest in his presence. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 (para 4). She submitted that by not adhering to the mandatory provisions under Section 50 CrPC, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution has been violated. The learned counsel also submits that the Apex Court in Satbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 694 had observed that the arrest of the petitioner in the cited case is illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner has not provided with grounds of arrest. 4. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of the court that the Apex Court has also clarified in Kanishk Sinha & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 278 in Special Leave Petition (Crl. Nos. 8609- 8614 of 2024) that the judgment of the court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will not Page No.# 3/7 operate retrospectively. She submits that even though the case cited by her in Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and in Vihaan Kumar(Supra) and Satbir Singh (Supra) were passed after the arrest of the accused petitioner, however, the decision of the said cases are applicable in the instant case regarding the requirement to inform the accused petitioner his grounds of arrest. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the deposition of the seizure witnesses and the owner of the vehicle from where the seized articles were said to be seized, it is seen that the accused petitioner is not involved with the seizure of the contraband substances in the instant case. She further submits that the seizure witness has stated in her cross examination that she did not see the excise personnel furnishing a copy of the arrest memo to the accused petitioner at the time of the seizure of the seized articles.She also submits that the accused petitioner is a father of 4 minor children and the main bread winner of the family. On the arrest of the accused petitioner, hehas kept his 3 minor child at TNT since the wife of the petitioner cannot look after all 3 of them while he is in Central Jail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the case of Nitish Adhikary Vs. State of West Bengal in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. No. 5769/2022) and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl. No. 6690/2022), wherein the Apex Court had granted the release of the accused petitioners due to their long incarceration in the jail. 7. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand strongly objected to the release of the applicant on bail by submitting that on perusal of the memo of arrest which was furnished to the accused petitioner, Page No.# 4/7 the grounds of arrest have been duly informed to him as required u/s 50 CrPC and in the judgments of the Apex Court and all the mandatory of the cited judgments have been followed. She further submitted that whether the accused petitioner is guilty of the offence or not are to be considered by the Trial Court wherein the trial is now at its final stage, whereby out of 8 prosecution witness, 6 have been examined and that both the remaining witnesses are government servant/excise department and would be available to give their evidence. 8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also brought to the notice of the court that nowhere in the bail application/petition of the accused petitioner,has it been mentioned that he is innocent of the charge under Section 41 (c) ND&PS Act and thus, his case for release of the accused on bail has to be considered along with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. She submitted that since there is no plea of the innocence of the accused petitioner and the bail of the accused petitioner cannot be granted under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. 10. It is seen that the main ground raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant for his release on bail is that the grounds of arrest was not provided to him as mandated by Section 50 of the CrPC which in turn is a violation of Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India and also not as per the directions given by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (Supra), Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha (Supra) and Satbir Singh Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Supra) and that the accused petitioner being only the driver of Page No.# 5/7 the vehicle is not involved in the seizure of the contraband substance. 11. In view of the above, this court has perused the Memo of seizure and arrest which according to the Additional Public Prosecutor, contains the details of the grounds of arrest and that copy the of Memo of seizure and arrest was duly given to the accused petitioner and the co accused.A perusal of the Memo of seizure and arrest shows accused petitioner was arrested at 3:00 pm on 03.08.2023 in connection with the seized articles along with the co-accused. The seized articles are ; i. 2667 (Two thousand sixhundred sixty seven) grams of suspected Heroin kept in 220 (Two hundred twenty) Soap cases (marked as S-1 to S-220) ii. 2 nos. of second hand nylon bag (clothes) (green-1 & yellow) used for concealment of the seized suspected Heroin iii. TATA Yodha Vehicle B/R no. MZ01-X-8688 Chasis no. MAT464667NSF - 11101 Engine no. VARICOR 12FXXS15604 with its documents & ignition key used for transportation & the seized suspected Heroin.” 12. It is also seen that the seizure memo contains information that:- “The Seized suspected Heroin were received from the carrier of the seized vehicle in the presence of witnesses. The Seized second hand nylon bag (2 no's) containing 10 blocks. Each containing suspected Heroin. Each blocks were wrapped in black polythene& sealed with yellow tape. Each blocks containing 11(eleven) soap case containing suspected heroin. Each blocks were kept in a transparent polythene & further wrapped in a black polythene sealed with yellow tape. Page No.# 6/7 DETAILED WEIGH OF THE SEIZED SUSPECTED HEROIN S-1 to S-27 = 13 grams S-28 to S-220 = 12 grams Colors Soap Cases: 1. Light blue - 14 2. Maroon -17 3. White -30 4. Green - 69 5. Blue - 34 6. Navy blue - 56 At the P.O the accused Vankhuma stated that he is the rightful owner of the seized vehicle. He brought it from 1st owner Vanlalnghaka by Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lakhs)& he continue payment loan debt by 1st owner. The two accused also stated that seized suspected Heroin belongs to Vanlalkungpuii. “ Thus, it appear that the grounds of arrest has been clearly laid out in the memo of arrest. 13. The Memo of seizure and arrest also contains the remarks that the arrest intimation of the accused were given to their respective relatives and that copies of the seizure and arrest memo was also received by both the accused persons and their signatures duly affixed. This court finds that six nos. of prosecution witnesses have been examined, wherein, PW No.2 who is the independent seizure witness, in his cross examination, had stated that the arresting officer did not inform the accused persons the grounds of arrest in his presence, however, this court finds that section 50 of the Cr.P.C, does not necessitate that the grounds of arrest are to be informed to the accused person in the presence of the seizure witness. Thus, this court finds that this aspect of grounds of arrest not being supplied to Page No.# 7/7 the accused petitioner, can be appropriately raised during trial when the concerned arresting prosecution witness is examined. 14. This court also finds that since the accused petitioner is the driver of the vehicle from where the seized contraband substance was seized, this court finds that no grounds have been made out, prima facie, for the court to believe that the accused petitioner is innocent of the charge under section 21(C) ND&PS Act. This point can be decided on merits by the learned trial court after the recording of all the evidence. Thus there are no grounds at this stage to allow the accused petitioner to be released on bail under section 37 ND&PS Act 15. This court also finds that the facts and circumstances under which bail was granted to the accused inNitish Adhikary Vs. State of West Bengal (supra) and Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) are different to the instant case. In the instant case it is seen that the trail is almost complete with only two witnesses remaining, i.e the seizing and arresting officer and the case I.O. Thus it appears that the trial of the case is likely to be completed soon. However, in the interest of justice, this court find it appropriate to pass an order for the learned trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously, preferable within a period of 4(four months) from the date of this order. 16. In view of the above findings and reasonings, this court finds no grounds to grant bail to the accused petitioner at this stage. 17. Accordingly, Bail Appln. No. 27 of 2020 stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant