Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004922025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./33/2025 Sh. Zothanmawia S/o F.Zothanpuia, R/o Zokhawthar, Champhai District VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 04-09-2025 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER 04.08.2025 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. P.P. 2. The accused/applicant has filed the present bail application under section 488 BNSS r/w section 37 of the ND&PS Act praying for release of the accused/applicant on bail. 3. The applicant submits that he was arrested by the Police on 23.5.2023 at 10.45 AM for alleged involvement in connection with seizure of Page No.# 2/5 19.452 Kgs of suspected Methamphetamine and was booked under section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act. It is stated that the applicant is in judicial custody till date. The grounds taken by the applicant/accused in the present application are:- 1. That there is gross violation of Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution which mandates that the grounds of arrest must be informed to the accused at the earliest. However, the applicant was not informed about the grounds of arrest in writing. Even though the report of seizure and arrest states that intimation was given to the wife of the accused, however, there is no signature of the wife or any relative in the charge- sheet nor in the arrest memo. 2. It is stated that there is violation of section 42 of the ND&PS Act in the present case. It is the contention of the applicant that there were 2 seizure in the present case. The first seizure was made from Thuampui Bus Terminal Aizawl at 10.45 AM and the second seizure was recovered from Durtlung Selesih road at 7.10 PM. The second seizure was made after the sunset but the Seizing Officer did not record his ground of belief and nothing was forwarded to his superior Officer. 4. The applicant also alleged that there is gross violation of section 52 A of the ND&PS Act which is evident from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. 5. It is submitted that there is no Malkhana receipt to show that the seized articles was in safe custody before the inventory was certified by the Magistrate. It is also stated that the Magistrate in his cross examination stated that in the inventory photographs the marking could not be seen and further that his signature could not be seen in the inventory photographs. It Page No.# 3/5 is also submitted that from the cross examination of PW-9, it is seen that the seized articles was sent to the Malkhana on 23.5.2023 and the Investigating Officer took out the seized articles from the said Malkhana for inventory before the Magistrate. But there was no Malkhana receipt to show that the seized article was in safe custody. Therefore, the chain of custody of the seized article is not proved. 6. The next submission which the applicant has made is that he has been incarcerated for more than 2 years and it will take a long time for the trial to be concluded. 7. In view of the submissions made above, the learned counsel for the applicant/accused prays that the applicant may be released on bail pending trial. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has relied in the following judgments:- 1. Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana and Another reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799. 2. Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 3. State of Rajasthan vs Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa reported in AIR 2016 SC 3041 4. Boota Singh and Others vs State of Haryana reported in (2021) 19 SCC 606 5. Rabi Prakash vs State of Odisha in SLP (CRL) 4169/2023 6. Kanishk Sinha & Anr vs State of West Bengal & Anr in SLP(CRL) 8609-8614/2024 7. Najmunisha vs Narcotics Bureau reported in (2024) SCC Online SC 520 Page No.# 4/5 8. Smti Najmunisha vs State of Gujarat reported in 2024 INSC 290 9. Pankaj vs State of Punjab order dated 14.6.2022 in CRM- M-25498-2021 8. The learned P.P. Ms. Vanneihsiami objecting to the bail application submits that the seizure was made in 2 stages. The first seizure was made from a public place at the Bus station and therefore, there is no violation of section 42 of the ND&PS Act. Moreover, the second seizure was made based on the disclosure statement of the accused during interrogation. Therefore, there is no violation of section 42 of the ND&PS Act. 9. The learned P.P further submits that the applicant has failed to show any concrete evidence that there was violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. She has also submitted that the case of Vihaan Kumar(supra) cannot be relied upon by the applicant and it does not assist the applicant’s case. 10. The learned P.P further relied on the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs Kashif reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3848 and submits that the section 52 A of the ND&PS Act lays down the procedure for disposal of seized narcotics drugs and psycotropic substance. Any lapse or delay in compliance of section 52 A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would it entitle the accused to be released on bail. 11. Finally the learned P.P submits that trial is almost over as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is now at the stage of defense witness examination and therefore, any delay in the conclusion of the trial is due to the non production of the defense witness and it is not the Page No.# 5/5 fault of the prosecution. The learned P.P. therefore, prays that the present bail application may be rejected. 12. The submissions of the opposing counsels have been given due consideration. This Court has also examined the judgments relied upon by the parties and perused the trial Court record. 13. As submitted by the learned P.P, it is observed that the trial is almost complete except for recording of the defense witness evidence. In the order sheet of the trial Court, the last order is recorded on 14.8.2025. On 14.8.2025, the case has been fixed for filing of written arguments. However, the defense counsel prayed for adducing defense evidence and the prayer was allowed and the matter was re-fixed for 29.8.2025. 14. This Court is of the view that the trial is almost completed and the case is of commercial quantity under the ND&PS Act and therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 15. Bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant