Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030007492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./48/2025 Smt. Laldingpuii W/o Shri. K. Ramengmawia R/o Lunglawn Lunglei Lunglei District VERSUS State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 01.12.2025 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/7 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act seeking grant of regular bail to the accused applicant, Smt. Laldingpuii, who has been arrested on 22.12.2023 in connection with SC No. N-38/2024 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS), 1985. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.12.2023 at 2:30 PM, S.I. Lalremruata Hrahsel received specific information from DSB Lunglei that they had detained one maxi cab b/r MZ01 Q 5865 which was suspected to carry contraband items at 5:30 that morning at Venglai and they located the suspected owner. In this regard, information was reported to the Officer-in- Charge, Lunglei and the O.C. immediately issued authorization letter under Section 41(2) of the ND&PS Act authorizing him to conduct search, seizure and arrest of suspected person. Thereafter, the seizing officer recorded grounds of belief under Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. Warrant of arrest for the two accused persons during the night time was also obtained from the CJM on 22/12/2023. Hence, seizure of the contraband articles, i.e., 601.14 grams of Heroin was made by S.I. Lalremruata Hrahsel from the possession of the accused on 22.12.2023 at 6:30 PM and arrest of the two accused persons Laldingpuii and Zonunmawii was made by another S.I. Z D Lalremruata on 22/12/2023 at 30 PM. 4. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the arresting authority while arresting the petitioner has not informed her the grounds of her arrest and as such, the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is totally infringed by the arresting authority. She accordingly, submits that the Page No.# 3/7 accused applicant is entitled to be released on bail forthwith. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned APP, Mizoram fairly submits that the materials available on record do not indicate that the facts constituting the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused applicant. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The only ground urged in the instant bail application is as regards the non-compliance of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the accused applicant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 8. Apt to refer to Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as hereunder:- “21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.—(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that an arrestee has a constitutional and fundamental right under the Constitution of India to be informed about the grounds of her arrest, at the time of her arrest. 10. A careful perusal of the case records and the materials available on record, it appears that there is nothing on record to indicate that the grounds of arrest while arresting the accused applicant was communicated or given to her. Page No.# 4/7 When non-compliance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is alleged, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to show that the accused applicant was informed of her grounds of arrest at the time of her arrest. However, in the present case, the prosecution, despite having been put to notice, has miserably failed to show that the accused applicant was informed of her grounds of arrest. 11. There is no doubt that the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Non-compliance of Article 22(1) will be a violation of the constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed by the said Article. That apart, it will amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When a violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India is established, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail. In fact, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused when a violation of Article 22(1) is established. 12. Upon the grounds of arrest being not informed to the accused applicant established, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith release the accused applicant. 13. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) SCConline SC 269. Paragraph 21 of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); Page No.# 5/7 b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirernents of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 14. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah -Vs- State of Maharashtra and Anr reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356, reiterated that in case of non-compliance of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the arrested person will be at liberty to be set free. 15. In the present case, there are no materials available in the case records to indicate that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused Page No.# 6/7 applicant in such a manner that the accused applicant has sufficient knowledge of the basic facts of the case. It is absolutely clear that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the accused applicant at the time of her arrest. Hence, the arrest is totally illegal. That being so, the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is not applicable in the present case. 16. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused applicant is liable to be released forthwith. 17. Accordingly, the accused applicant, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforementioned case on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs), with two sureties of like amount each, provided that one surety has to be a Government Servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Lunglei under the following conditions: - (i) that the accused applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court, on each and every date to be fixed by it; (ii) that the accused applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the accused applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, without prior permission. 18. It is made clear that in case of any violation of the above mentioned terms and conditions by the accused applicant, the bail granted to her shall Page No.# 7/7 automatically stand vacated. 19. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant