Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030006802025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./45/2025 Sh. Gospel Lalruatfela Thenzawl, Serchhip District VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 28.10.2025 This is an application u/s 483 of the BNSS r/w Section 37 of the ND&PS Act filed by the accused/applicant praying for release on bail pending trial of the SES Case No. 274/2024 before the learned Special Judge ND&PS Act, Serchhip, Mizoram. Page No.# 2/6 2. Heard Mr. J.H Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. The grounds put forward by the petitioner in the present application are as follows: (1) The accused/applicant was arrested on 12.11.2024 for alleged possession of 27 soap cases containing heroin. However, it is stated that there are several procedural lapses during the search and seizure as well as sampling and marking in the samples. (2) The learned counsel has submitted that the Investigating Officer has not sent the samples of all the 27 soap cases and instead the samples are only marked as 1, 2 & 3 and further the weight of only one sample is mentioned while others are not reflected in the inventory. (3) There was unexplained delay in forwarding the samples to the FSL. The samples were drawn on 03.11.2024, but dispatched only on 05.11.2024, received by the FSL on 19.11.2024 and report forwarded on 19.12.2024. Such a delay of over 15 days cast a doubt on the integrity of the samples. Moreover, the FSL report shows variation in the weights of Page No.# 3/6 the three samples i.e. 5.0 grams, 4.5 grams & 4.4 grams creating further doubts regarding the reliability of the samples. 3. The learned counsel has also submitted that the grounds of arrest have not been provided to him as required under the law and in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Another grounds taken by the learned counsel is that in the authorization letter issued to the seizing officer, the description of the premises and the area in which search is to be conducted has not been mentioned and the portion where the same is supposed to be inserted is kept blank. Therefore, this also goes to show that there is contravention of Section 41 of the ND& PS Act. 4. The learned counsel further submits that the Assistant Director of the FSL while forwarding the FSL report vide letter dated 19.12.2024 has mentioned the section as Section 21 (b) of the ND& PS Act instead of 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act. The learned counsel has relied on the case of the State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh reported in (1994) 3 SCC 299 to support his contention that only the empowered officer can give authorization to his sub-ordinate officer to carry out the arrest of a person u/s 41 (2) of the ND&PS Act and if there is a contravention that would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the conviction. Page No.# 4/6 The Supreme Court also stated that under the proviso to Section 42, such officer has to carry out such search between sunrise and sunset. The learned counsel also relies on the case of Dilip & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2007) 1 SCC 450 wherein, the Supreme Court held that the offence committed under the ND&PS Act is a grave one and procedural safe guards provided in terms of Sections 41, 42 & 50 of the ND&PS Act should be complied with. 5. In view of the submissions as stated herein above, the learned counsel prays that the accused herein, may be released on bail pending completion of the trial. He has also submitted that the accused has now been in custody for 11 months and 26 days till date. 6. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents submits that there are two independent witnesses in the present case regarding the seizure of the seized articles. Moreover, it was the accused himself, who had shown the seized articles to the Excise personnel. Therefore, there was conscious possession on the part of the accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that in the present case, the accused was very well aware about the grounds of arrest as he was the one who had showed the seized article to the Police personnel and he knew that the same Page No.# 5/6 was a contraband substance and therefore, the constitutional safe guard of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been complied with. In the report of the seizure and arrest dated 03.11.2024, it is clearly stated that the ground of arrest was intimated to the mother of the accused and the accused has put his signature therein. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the recovery was made on a public road and therefore, the compliance of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act does not apply strictly in the present case. She has also submitted that this is not a case of personal search and therefore, Section 50 of the ND&PS Act is also not applicable. As far as the submissions of the applicant regarding the FSL report and the sample is concerned, the same can be proved or rebutted only after evidence is adduced and not at this stage. 7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the trial has not been delayed and in fact out of 6 prosecution witnesses, 2 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only 4 prosecution witnesses are to be examined. Therefore, the question of delay in trial is also not relevant in the present case. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor therefore prays that the present petition may be dismissed. 8. This court has considered the submission of the opposite parties and has Page No.# 6/6 perused the pleadings as well as the TCR. The present case pertains to the seizure of the contraband items which are of commercial quantity. In such cases, the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is to be applied, wherein, it is stated that the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, it is seen that prima facie case had been established against the accused/appellant and the most relevant factor is that the trial has already started and 2 prosecution witnesses out of 6 prosecution witnesses has already been examined which means that the trial is being conducted on time. In such a case, this Court is not inclined to allow the present petition and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is directed that the trial court shall complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. 9. Application disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant