Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030007342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./47/2025 Sh. Lalhmingliana S/o Malsawmkima (L), Armed Veng South, Aizawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 06.11.2025 Heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. [2.] This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 by the petitioner seeking his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on Page No.# 2/8 15.08.2025 along with the co-accused person who in fact is his mother for alleged possession of 111 grams of suspected heroin. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and booked under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner contends that charge-sheet was filed on 16.09.2025 against the petitioner and the co-accused person after the Investigating Officer found a prima facie case under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act for violation of Section 8(c) of the same Act. As many as six (6) prosecution witnesses are cited in the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his Bail Application before the Trial Court i.e., Bail Application No. 385/2025, but the same was rejected vide order dated 15.10.2025. [3.] Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel submits that the grounds taken for seeking bail are that Section 37 of the NS&PS Act is not attracted, no meaningful grounds of arrest has been furnished either to the petitioner or to his relatives and thereby, resulting in violation of the Apex Court decision rendered in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799, there is no previous criminal record against the petitioner and lastly, the petitioner is the sole bread earner of the family and looking after a child and his mother-in-law who is suffering from cancer. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited the following authorities:- Page No.# 3/8 (1) Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 (2) P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337 (3) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (supra) (4) Order dated 23.10.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 2282/2025 (Fatik Ali Vs. Union of India) and (5) Order dated 21.10.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 44/2025 (Sh. Vanlalrohlua Pautu Vs. State of Mizoram). [4.] Per contra, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has not annexed the authorization given by him to his wife who has sworn the affidavit annexed to the petition. The petition has been drafted as if it is the petitioner himself who had filed the Bail Application. Therefore, the Bail Application is not maintainable in its form and style. She further submits the materials collected during the investigation and which was submitted along with the charge sheet clearly goes to show that the petitioner and his mother are involved in possession of illegal substance punishable under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act and Section 8(c) of the same Act being Page No.# 4/8 attracted. She submits that search and seizure were conducted as per the procedure prescribed by law and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance in this regard. She also submits that in so far as the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ is concerned, the same was duly communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner in acceptance thereof has also subscribed his signature on the body of ‘Grounds of Arrest’. She submits that although the relatives of the petitioner may not have been formally communicated but the fact remains that they are aware about the arrest of the petitioner and the co- accused person and the reasons for the arrest. As a result, the instant application has also been filed in view of such knowledge and information. Under the circumstance, she submits that the Bail Application filed before the Trial Court having been rejected despite similar grounds taken by the petitioner, the instant Bail Application should also be rejected. [5.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the record requisitioned from the Trial Court. [6.] The report of seizure and arrest submitted by the authority who had undertaken the same dated 17.07.2025 goes to show that he had received information from his source that the petitioner and his mother kept heroin in the Page No.# 5/8 residence of Lalthakimi of Ramhlun Vengthar. Such information was received by him at around 2 am on 15.08.2025. Upon reaching the residence of Lalthakimi, he recorded the ‘Grounds of Belief’ and conducted search in the presence of reliable civilian witnesses and the two (2) suspects i.e., the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner stated that he kept his share of heroin and that of his mother in the residence of Lalthakimi. He kept his mother’s share at the same place according to her wishes and that he had already sold off his share. Since the owner/possessor of the heroin was a female, he obtained the permission of her arrest from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class and he seized the suspected heroin at 3:40 am and arrested both the accused persons for possession of the heroin. He did not arrest the owner of the residence as he was unaware about the contents of the article that was kept in her residence. Apart from the report of seizure and arrest, the petitioner has annexed the ‘Information Report’, ‘Grounds of Belief’, ‘Grounds of Arrest’, ‘Seizure & Arrest Memo’, the FSL report confirming the seized article to be heroin, statement of witnesses and the accused persons and the charge-sheet itself. [7.] The materials on record goes to show that the co-accused person earned her livelihood by selling heroin and the petitioner who is her son is also involved in the business. According to the petitioner, he had kept the heroin in the residence of Lalthakimi without her knowledge and that he had sold off his Page No.# 6/8 share of the heroin already while the share of his mother was still kept in the residence of Lalthakimi. The co-accused person has also stated that she had earlier been arrested for possession of heroin. The FSL report secured by the Investigating Authority also goes to show that the article seized and sent for FSL examination revealed that the same was heroin, which was of the purity 74% and 79% w/w at the time of examination. Therefore, the materials available on record prima facie goes to show Section 8(c) and Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act are attracted. [8.] In respect of the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ having not been meaningfully served upon the petitioner, it may be seen that the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ has been prepared in the form of a format showing that the petitioner was arrested at 3:40 am on 15.08.2025 for possession of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substance/controlled substance in violation of Section 8(c) of the ND&PS Act and also stated that the ‘Grounds of Arrest’ and ‘Right to Bail’ has been explained to him in the language known to him. The name and address of the person arrested has also been written by hand. As a token of acknowledgement, the petitioner as well as the co-accused person have subscribed their signature on the body of ‘Grounds of Arrest’. Therefore, having regard to the recovery being made from the house of Lalthakimi on the basis of information given by the petitioner and the co-accused person, it cannot be said that the petitioner is Page No.# 7/8 not aware as to why he has been arrested and further, about his right to bail as was apparently informed to him in the language he understood. [9.] The Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) held that the jurisdiction to grand bail is to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the factors to be considered would be nature of accusation, severity of the punishment, materials relied upon by the prosecution, tampering with witnesses, likelihood of the accused absconding, character, behavior and standing of the accused, the larger interest of the public etc,. [10.] In the present case, the materials on record prima facie shows that the petitioner himself is addicted to drugs and he has also engaged himself in selling of drugs. Further, the co-accused person who is his mother earns her livelihood by selling drugs. Such being the case, having regard to the larger interest of the public, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Bail Application stands rejected. Any observations made in this order are solely for the purpose of considering the Bail Application and shall not effect determination of the case on merit by the learned Trial Court. Registry to return back the Trial Court Records immediately. JUDGE Page No.# 8/8 Comparing Assistant