Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030007812025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./37/2025 Sh. Sagar Das S/o Sajal Das R/o Ranir Bazar Jarinia, West Tripura VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary Home Department Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Vanlalhriata Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 27.11.2025 Heard Ms. Vanlalchhandami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of this petition under Section 528, read with Section 483 Page No.# 2/4 (1) (b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the accused/petitioner, i.e., Sagar Das, is seeking modification of the bail condition nos. (1) and (2) imposed by the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “trial court”) in Bail Application No. 327/2025 vide order dated 10.09.2025 in Criminal Trial NDPS Case No. 23/2025. 3. The first two conditions of the order dated 10.09.2025 reads as under: - “(1) A bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lakh) shall be executed by the accused person and two sureties. (2) One surety shall be a permanent resident of Aizawl duly living in his her/her owned house; one surety shall be any regular government servant not below the rank of LDC, posted at Aizawl, duly certified by Controlling Officer/Head of office in this regard” 4. Ms. Vanlalchhandami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the accused/petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family and does daily wage to support his widowed mother. She further submits that the bail condition nos. (1) and (2) imposed by the trial court are too excessive for the accused/petitioner, and he could not meet the said conditions, and as such, no bail bond has been executed till date. 5. Per contra, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that in the decision of the coordinate bench of this court, passed on 17.10.2025, in Sh. Dilwar Hussain Barbhuiya and Anr -vs- Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit Aizawl, in Page No.# 3/4 Crl.Pet No. 32/2025, in a similar situation, wherein a case of such nature, where the petitioner was unable to meet the bail conditions due to harsh bail bond conditions, this court modified the same reasonably. 6. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the material available on record. I have also considered the case law cited at the bar. 7. Having noticed that due to the bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted with two sureties, including one surety who shall be a permanent resident of Aizawl living in his own house and one surety who shall be a regular government servant not below the rank of LDC, posted at Aizawl, the accused/petitioner, being from a financially backward family and struggling to earn daily bread and butter for his family, is unable to meet the said conditions and avail the bail granted to him by the trial court, the same amounted to no bail (Refer: Girsh Gandhi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 674). 8. Keeping in mind that an excessive bail bond is no bail vis-à-vis the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the first two conditions of the order dated 10.09.2025, be modified to the extent that: (1) the accused/petitioner shall execute bail bond of Rs. 2,50,000/- (rupees two lakh and fifty thousand) only, with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, (2) one surety shall be any government servant working in the State of Mizoram, and the other surety shall be a local resident of the said State. Page No.# 4/4 9. Ordered accordingly. 10. The condition nos. (1) & (2) stand modified. The condition nos. (3), (4), (5), (6), & (7) will remain the same as they are. 11. The criminal petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant