Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030008522025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./61/2025 Sh. Ezekiel Lalhmuakliana S/o Lalmangkhuma (L) R/o Chawnpui Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. R/b the Secretary/Commissioner Excise and Narcotics Department Government of Mizoram 2:The Officer-in-Charg Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. J H Ramneihmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 30.01.2026 Heard Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 for release of the petitioner on bail in connection Page No.# 2/4 with ND&PS Case No. 79/2025 corresponding to E&N Case No. N-49/2025 under Section 21(c)/22(c) of the ND&PS Act. It is submitted at the bar that charge sheet has already been submitted in the case vide Charge Sheet No. EX-(ANS) 47/2025 under Section 21(c) and 22(c) of the ND&PS Act. After framing of the charge under the aforesaid Section, trial has begun and out of the ten (10) prosecution witnesses, four (4) prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has been filed for seeking bail on two (2) main grounds. The first ground is that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the petitioner and the second ground is that he has not been informed that he can engage a counsel to defend him and for seeking bail. The learned counsel submits that in so far as the first ground is concerned, an observation has already been made by this Court in its Order dated 12.12.2025 wherein, it was recorded that the grounds of arrest has been communicated to the petitioner, which can be seen from Annexure – 7 of the bail application. On perusal of Annexure – 7, it is seen that the petitioner has been duly explained about the grounds of his arrest and his right to bail in the language known to him and as a token of acceptance, the petitioner has also subscribed his signature on the body of Grounds of Arrest Memo. In so far as the stand Page No.# 3/4 taken by the petitioner that he has not been informed that he can engage a counsel of his choice to defend him in the trial and for seeking bail as well, it is seen from the Memo of Grounds of Arrest that apart from the grounds of arrest, the petitioner has been informed his right to bail and which was explained to him in the language he understood. Although it was not specifically mentioned that he can engage a lawyer of his choice but the fact remains that the petitioner had engaged a lawyer to apply bail on his behalf before the Trial Court. The same was registered as Bail Application No. 438/2025 and the Bail Application was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2025. Therefore, the same goes to show that the petitioner is very much aware about his right to engage a lawyer and it can be very much understood from the manner in which the explanation has been made to him in the Memo of Grounds of Arrest that he very well might have been informed about the same and hence the bail application before the Trial Court. Even after the said bail application was rejected, the instant bail application has been filed before this Court. Therefore, this Court upon due consideration is not inclined to entertain the two (2) grounds and particularly when the recovered substance is of a commercial quantity prescribing severe punishment for the same. Further, the trial is in motion and under the facts and circumstances, the bail application stands rejected and dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 In terms of the order of this Court, the TCR was requisitioned and the same has been sent and duly perused by this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant