Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030005672025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./38/2025 Sh. Parul Hussain Ahmed H.No. 92, Saidpur Pt.V, Near Sonabarighat Bazar, Cachar, Assam VERSUS Union of India Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : Mr C Zoramchhana, Special P.P., NCB B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 25.09.2025 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner along with Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/NCB. 2. The instant application/petitioner is filed u/s 483 of the BNSS r/w Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 for the release of the accused/petitioner on bail in Page No.# 2/9 connection with Criminal Trial No. 157/2024 in S.R(P) 28/2024 A/o NCB Crime No. 08/2023 (Spl. Narcotics Police Station, Aizawl Case No. 30/2023) u/s 8(c), 21(c), 25, 29 of the ND & PS Act, 1985. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second time that the petitioner has approached this court for grant of bail wherein, this court in Bail Appln. No. 11/2025 dated 25.04.2025, had dismissed the bail application. The bail application is submitted again on fresh grounds which aroses on the examinations of the case I.O No. 2 and dissolve to the health condition of the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the accused/petitioner is suspected to be involved in the seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin on 02.05.2023 and the petitioner was arrested on 24.09.2024, when a supplementary charge sheet was filed against him u/s 8(c) r/w Section 21(c), 25, 29, 35, 53(A), 54, 60, 66, 68, 69 & 77 of the ND&PS Act in connection with the seized articles. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the cross examination of the second case I.O, Mr. CSK. Singh, Superintendent, NCB, on 16.07.2025, it is seen that the grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused/petitioner. The case I.O admitted that in the arrest memorandum of the petitioner dated 24.09.2024, the arrest information was given to Abdul Hakim Page No.# 3/9 Laskar, alleged to be the brother of the accused/petitioner (contact No. 9531939436) which is the same person in the arrest memo of co-accused, Abul Mazid Laskar dated 05.02.2023. The case I.O No. 2, in his cross-examination admitted that there is no evidence or record to show that Abdul Hakim Lasker and the petitioner are brothers. Therefore, it is evident that the memo of arrest/grounds of arrest was not furnished to the petitioner, which is in violation of his fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 22 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 162. 6. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since his arrest for a period of 1 year and 1 day and thus, he is entitled to be released on bail due to his prolonged incarceration. The learned counsel submitting that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and therefore, there is no likelihood of the trial against the accused/petitioner to be completed in the near future. In support of her submission, she has cited the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of i) Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal Trial No. 6690/2022 dated Page No.# 4/9 25.01.2023 ii) Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha reported in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal Trial No. 4169/2023 dated 13.07.2023, iii) Nitish Adhikary Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal reported in Special Leave to Appeal Criminal Trial No. 5769/2022 dated 01.08.2022, wherein, the Apex Court had granted bail to the accused/petitioners on the ground of their prolonged incarceration wherein the Apex Court had noted that prolonged incarceration generally militates against the most fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created u/s 37 of the ND & PS Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced some medical documents showing that the petitioner needs to undergo certain treatment in his eyes. She submitted that due to this condition wherein, the petitioner could be in need of an operation to one of his eyes and he is facing much hardship and as such, he may be granted bail. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that the accused/petitioner is innocent of the charge made out against him, since his only involvement is said to be for the debit of Rs 8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) from his bank account, which is claimed to be the payment of the seized contraband. She therefore submitted Page No.# 5/9 that there is no possibility of the accused/petitioner being convicted given the flimsy grounds, on which he has been arrested and charged u/s 21(c) of the ND & PS Act, along with other sections of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that, although the accused/petitioner is not a resident of the State of Mizoram but a resident of the State of Assam, the NCB has branches across India and if the accused/petitioner attempts to abscond, he can always be apprehended. 9. Per contra, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/NCB submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence to support the accused/petitioner for his conviction u/s 21(c) of the ND&PS Act. He submitted that the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Rs. 8000/- (Rupees eight thousand) debited from the petitioner’s bank account and credited to the bank account of the co-accused, Abul Mazid Lakar is connected to the seized contraband seizure of 2.533 kgs of heroin. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the circumstances under which the accused/petitioner was arrested on 24.09.2024, is a bit different and it cannot be said that he did not know the grounds of his arrest. He submitted that on the arrest of the co-accused, namely Abdul Maszid Page No.# 6/9 Laskar on 02.05.2023, and the seizure of 2.553 kgs of heroin from the truck/vehicle driven by him, it was discovered that the present accused/petitioner was involved in the seizure of the said contraband substance. Therefore, summons was first issued to him and due to his non-appearance, warrant of arrest was issued against him on 13.01.2024 and 15.05.2024, however, the w/a could not be executed since he was not found in his given address. Thereafter, on 18.09.2024, the accused/petitioner came to Aizawl and applied for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the learned trial court. On the advice of his counsel, he surrendered himself into the hands of the NCB and was formally arrested on 24.09.2024. The learned counsel thus submitted that the accused/petitioner was very much aware his grounds of arrest, which can be seen from the anticipatory bail application filed by him. 11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that upon perusal of the arrest memo dated 24.09.2025, it is evident that a copy of the arrest memo was duly furnished to him since the arrest memo contains the signature of the accused/petitioner. He also submitted that the judgment cited by the learned counsel in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) is not applicable in the instant case wherein, the cited judgment refers to circumstances where the accused person is arrested without having any previous knowledge as to the grounds for arrest, Page No.# 7/9 which is not so in the present case. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that there were no grounds to release the accused/petitioner on medical grounds, since it can be seen from the medical documents that the accused/petitioner is not suffering from any serious illness. The learned counsel has brought to the notice of this court, the follow up advice, given to the accused/petitioner, which is to use his mobile phone less and also to get more sleep/rest (phone khawih tlem tum leh mut tam). He therefore submitted that there were no grounds for release of the accused/petitioner on bail for medical reasons or for any reason whatsoever, since the accused/petitioner, being a non-resident of Mizoram, is likely to abscond if granted bail. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties. It is seen that though the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner has submitted that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished to the accused/petitioner, however, on the perusal of the memo of arrest dated 24.09.2024, at the bottom of the page, the document is addressed to the accused/petitioner and the signature of the accused/petitioner is also affixed, which is dated 24.09.2024. Therefore, prima facie, it appears that a copy of the Page No.# 8/9 memo arrest was duly furnished to the accused/petitioner. This court also finds that, although the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the cross-examination of the case I.O No. 2/PW No. 2 to show that memo of arrest/grounds of arrest was not furnished to the accused/petitioner, however, it is seen that PW No. 2 is neither the arresting authority nor the person who had prepared the memo of arrest. Therefore, it cannot be simply be presumed that the memo of arrest/grounds of arrest was not furnished to the accused/petitioner unless it is duly substantiated. This court also finds that the accused/petitioner also appeared to be well aware of his grounds of arrest where in, he had previously approached the learned trial court for anticipatory bail. 14. It is also seen that the accused/petitioner has been in judicial custody for a period of 1 year 1 day. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relates to prolonged incarceration of the accused persons for periods of 1 year 7 months (where only 1 prosecution witness was examined), 21/2 years (two and a half years) and 31/2 years (three and a half years). It is seen that as many as 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date and thus find that it cannot be simply presumed that the trial against the Page No.# 9/9 accused/persons is not likely to be completed in the near future. 15. This court also finds that upon perusal of the medical documents furnished, the ailment of the petitioner does not appear to be of such serious nature that would warranty his reduce on bail and thus, there are no sufficient grounds of which the accused/petitioner should be released on bail due to his medical condition. 16. Thus, this court taking into consideration the above finding and also serious nature of the offence for which the accused/petitioner has been charged with, and coupled with the possibility of the accused/petitioner absconding if released on bail since he is not a resident of the State of Mizoram, finds no grounds to grant bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. 17. Accordingly, Bail Application No. 38/2025 stands dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant