Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030004272025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./30/2025 Sh. Jiyaul Islam Barbhuiya Boldaboldi Part-I, Hailakandi, Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. K. Thangremsang Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 25-07-2025 Heard Mr. K. Thangremsang, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State respondents. 2. This is an application filed u/s 483 BNSS read with section 37 ND&PS Act, for grant of bail to the applicant/petitioner who was arrested on 09.11.2023 in connection with Vairengte P.S case No. 49/23 u/s 21 (c)/ 2025 of the ND&PS Page No.# 2/6 Act, 1985, on the seizure of 1.437 kgs of suspected heroine. 3. Mr. K. Thangremsang, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle Tripper B/R No. AS 11 DC9285 and that he has no knowledge of the contraband substance which was seized from the vehicle driven by him. He submitted that the petitioner was on leave due to family health problem but was directed on 09.11.2025, to join his work and the owner of the vehicle had drop him at Kawnpui, where the truck was to head for Luna, Assam from Kawnpui to carry fine rice. When the truck was checked at Vairengte Check Point, the contraband substance was found of which the accused petitioner had no knowledge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has been in Judicial Custody since 09.11.2023 till date and the charge sheet was also submitted before the Trial Court on 07.03.2024. That out of a total of 6 (Six) prosecution witnesses only PW-1 and PW-2 are examined and PW-3 being unable to appear before the Court was dropped from being a prosecution witness. He submitted that the case is pending at the trial stage and that the last witness was cross-examine on 02.08.2024 and no other prosecution witnesses have been examine even after a lapsed of 9 (nine) months. 5. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of records and evidence Page No.# 3/6 show that there is a violation of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, since the ’Grounds of belief’ was not recorded as per law and it was recorded only after the seizure of the contraband substant and arrest of the accused person. 6. The learned counsel, further submitted that the seized Article was seized on 09.11.2023, however it was received by the Directorate of Forensics Science Laboratory only on 21.11.2023, which is in violation Rule No. 13 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substance (seizure, storage, sample and disposal) Rules 2022. 7. The learned counsel also led this Court to the report of Seizure and Arrest dated 09.11.2023, which is exhibited as Ex-P-VII wherein, the report Order dated 09.11.2023, refers to Vairengte P.S Case No. 49/2023 dated 10.11.2023, u/s 21 (c)/25 ND&PS Act, he thus submits that the said of seizure and arrest has been back dated. 8. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand submits that since the seized articles were seized from the vehicle driven by the petitioner, the seized articles were seized while in possession of the petitioner and therefore he is likely to have knowledge of the seized articles. She further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, has been duly followed by the Seizing officer. Page No.# 4/6 9. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, also submits that minor lapses on the part of the Seizing officer or lapses during investigation under the ND&PS Act, cannot automatically be grounds for granting bail to the accused persons if prima facie it appears that the accused person is guilty of committing the offense. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the Case of Narcotices Control Bureau vs Kashif reported in 2024 ACC online AC 3848, wherein the Apex Court held that procedural irregularity or illegality committed during investigation itself do not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation inadmissible while considering an application for bail u/s 37 of the ND&PS Act. 10. This Court has consider the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. It is not disputed that 1.437 Kgs of suspected heroine was seized from the vehicle a Tripper B/R No. AS11 DC 9285, which was driven by the petitioner thus prima facie it appears that on the seizure of the seized articles from the vehicle driven by the petitioner it was seized from the possession of the petitioner. On perusal of the documents on record, it is also seen that the ’Grounds of Belief’, which is dated 09.11.2023 has been exhibited as exhibit – P – III, and therefore, unless proved otherwise, the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, appear to have been followed. The Page No.# 5/6 plea whether the mandatory provisions of section 42 of ND&PS Act, have been violated or not, can be properly examined by the Trial Court during trial and on the examination of all the prosecution witnesses. 11. This Court also finds that the reason for the delay in sending the seize articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be examined before the Trial Court during trial on the examination of all the prosecution witnesses. 12. It is also seen that the Apex Court and Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Kashif (Supra) held as follows:- ’’39…………… (ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 in sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the ND&PS Act. …………………….. (v) any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the Page No.# 6/6 course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.” 13. For the above reasons, this Court finds no reason to grant bail to the accused at the stage. However, considering the fact that only 2 (two) prosecution witnesses have been examine out of 6 (six) prosecution witnesses, this Court find it appropriate to passed an order that the learned Trial Court should made an attempt to dispose of the instant Criminal Trial Case No. SC (K) 12 of 2024 u/s 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of this order. 14. Bail Application No. 30/2025 thus stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant