Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030006582025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./43/2025 Maram Miah S/o Abbas Miah, R/o - Pandabpur, Antali, West Tripura. VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b PP/Addl. PP Mizoram. Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai. Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram. B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.11.2025 Heard Mrs. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for State respondent. 2. By this application, the petitioner has sought for bail in connection with Page No.# 2/11 SR No.N-452/2023 in Excise Case No. N-200 under Section 21 (c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 3. The petitioner had been arrested on 14.07.2023 at 02:15 A.M, for alleged involvement in connection with the seizure of 5.114 kgs of suspected heroin and was booked under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner was remanded to custody on his production before the learned Magistrate upon his arrest and he has remained behind bars till date. 4. The petitioner had previously filed different bail applications before the learned Trial Court, all of which came to be rejected. It is pertinent to note here that although five accused were charge-sheeted, the learned Trial Court did not find any reason to proceed against the accused Nos. 2, 4 and 5. Accordingly, those accused were discharged from the liability of the case. The accused No. 1 i.e., one Jahir Alam and the accused No. 3 i.e., Maram Miah, the present petitioner were found liable to face prosecution. 5. The petitioner herein had preferred a bail application in the Court of the Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, which came to be registered as Bail Application No. 118 of 2025, and which came to be disposed of by an Order dated 13.05.2025. 6. While considering the aforesaid bail application, the learned Trial Court had recorded the submission of the petitioner regarding the violations of different provisions of law by the prosecution and had come to a conclusion that mere violation of some rules, does not vitiate the prosecution case. Finding that there was nothing on record to show possible innocence of the Page No.# 3/11 accused and that the condition of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 were not satisfied, the application was rejected. 7. The petitioner had thereafter submitted B.A No. 199/2025 before the Judge, Special Court of NDPS, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl which came to be rejected by the order dated 08.08.2025. The order dated 08.08.2025 records that previous bail application bearing registration No. 118/2025 preferred by the petitioner herein had been rejected by the order dated 13.05.2025. The Bail Application No. 199/2025 preferred before the Court of the Judge, Special Court of NDPS, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, Mizoram (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court) was filed raising additional grievance that the petitioner had not been informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and as such, the gross violation of Article-21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India had taken place. By the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court, it was observed that the grounds of arrest may not have been furnished to the accused/petitioner in writing but by placing the reliance in the case of Arun Khundongbam @ Nanao -versus- The Central Bureau of Investigation (B.A No. 1100/2025 decided on 09.05.2025), the learned Trial Court had rejected the bail application by holding that, so long as the accused had been informed about the arrest at the time when he was produced before the learned Trial Court within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, it would not be mandatory to intimate the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused in the present case. The learned Trial Court had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal -versus- Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, wherein it was held that “henceforth, the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused”, to observe that the same would be applicable only after the said decision was made on 03.10.2023. The learned Trial Court was not satisfied to Page No.# 4/11 release the accused/petitioner on bail on the ground of non-furnishing the grounds of arrest in written form to the accused. Aggrieved, this bail application has been filed under section 483 of BNSS, 2023. 8. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that although the charge-sheet/complaint sheet had been filed before the learned Trial Court on 20.12.2023, it is apprehended that the trial would not conclude within a short time. She has submitted that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration since 14.07.2023. The learned counsel has submitted that the accused petitioner was not informed of his ground of arrest either orally or in writing at the time of his arrest or before his production before the learned Magistrate immediately after his arrest. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, at the time when he was being produced before the learned Magistrate and when the arresting authority had prayed for his remand, the petitioner did not know about his grounds of arrest and such action of the arresting authority in not informing the petitioner about the grounds of arrest in any form had vitiated the arrest of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it would be available in the records that the petitioner was not represented by a counsel at the time of his production immediately after the arrest and that no application praying for bail could be preferred before the learned Magistrate when he was so produced. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Page No.# 5/11 learned Magistrate did not inform the petitioner regarding his right to be defended by a counsel of his choice and the remand order does not reflect that the learned Magistrate had satisfied himself regarding the compliance of provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a settled position in law that when the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution are violated, an arrest has to be declared to be unconstitutional and the detention of an accused in such cases deserves the interference of the Court. She has submitted that the records of the trial so far conducted would reveal that there are several discrepancies in the evidence so far led by the prosecution and there is every possibility of the petitioner being acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the materials available on record and in view of the violations of provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail during the remaining period of trial, subject to such just conditions, as may be deemed fit by this Court. 14. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following cases: 1) Vihaan Kumar -Versus- State of Haryana & Another, 2025 (5) SCC 799. 2) Prabir Purkayastha -Versus- State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC Page No.# 6/11 254. 3) Mihir Rajesh Shah -Versus- State of Maharashtra & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 2356. 4) Kanishk Sinha & Another -Versus- State of West Bengal & Another, 2025 SCC Online SC 443. 15. Resisting the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that prior to the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal -Versus- Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, which was decided on 03.10.2023, there was no requirement for the grounds of arrest to be supplied to a person arrested in writing and it was considered sufficient in law if such grounds were informed to the petitioner in any manner to the understanding of the accused under arrest. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor thus submits that non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the petitioner in writing does not vitiate the arrest and therefore, the said ground taken up by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not deserve any consideration of this Court. 16. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the case of Arun Khundongbam @ Nanao -Versus- The Central Bureau of Investigation in BA No. 1100/2025 decided on 09.05.2025 to impress that this Court has already held that so long as the accused had been informed about the arrest at the time when he was produced before the learned Court within a period of 24 hours of such arrest, it would not be mandatory to intimate the Page No.# 7/11 grounds of arrest in writing to an accused in cases of arrest having been affected prior to the pronouncement of the Judgment in Pankaj Bansal -Versus- Union of India & Others (Supra). 17. Replying to the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the evaluation of the evidence led before the Trial Court is a matter which would attain finality when the matter is considered in its entirety by the learned Trial Court and at this stage, when the trial is proceeding, it would not be fair and in the interest of justice, to evaluate the evidence so led. In support of her submission, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the case of Narcotics Control Bureau Versus- Kashif reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3848. 18. The submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties had been duly considered. 19. The Trial Court Record received on requisition has been produced. 20. In so far as the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner that arrest of the petitioner stood vitiated due to non furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing is concerned, this Court finds force in the submission made by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that such requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to an accused is not a mandatory requirement in cases of arrest effected prior to 03.10.2023. 21. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Arun Khungdongbam @ Nando (Supra) has held that the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) can be Page No.# 8/11 made applicable only to arrests made after the said decision was rendered by the Apex Court on 03.10.2023. This Court does not find any reason to differ. The Apex Court had in the case of Ram Kishore Arora -Versus- Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 599 has held as follows: “23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal Case also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 of PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, "henceforth" meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word henceforth" implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi for the Appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary "henceforth" that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with." 22. In view of the above, this Court does not find force in the submission that non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing to the petitioner can be the sole ground for coming to a conclusion that the arrest of the petitioner in the present case suffered violations of provisions of Article 22(1). 23. However, since violation of Article 21 & 22(1) has been urged in the petition, this Court has perused the records with assistance of the learned Page No.# 9/11 Addl. P.P to trace documents on which the arresting authorities could rely upon to prove the compliance of Article 22(1). 24. A perusal of the case records available does not reveal any entry to the effect that the petitioner had been informed in any manner about the grounds of his arrest. 25. The orders passed by the learned remand Magistrate also do not reveal that the remand court had made attempts to verify that the mandates of Article 22(1) had been compiled while allowing the remand of the petitioner. The order of remand reveals that the learned Magistrate had merely quoted the prayers made by the arresting authority for remand of the accused and thereafter, had allowed the prayers, with a single stroke of pen. The records produced do not reveal either that the petitioner was represented during the remand proceedings or that any bail application had been preferred. 26. Notwithstanding that the mandates of providing written grounds of arrest to the petitioner does not apply to the present case, this Court finds that there is no record to indicate that the petitioner had been informed about the grounds of arrest in any form, either by the arresting authority or by the learned court which remanded him to the custody of the arresting authority for a further period, since where after, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to liberty. There is no record to indicate that the petitioner was informed about the grounds of arrest and secondly, there is no record to indicate that he was afforded the opportunity to exercise his right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has suffered Page No.# 10/11 violations of his rights enshrined in Article 21 and Article 22(1) and the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated. 27. Having found so, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the Trial against the petitioner is proceeding at a good pace and also the fact that the petitioner is admittedly a resident of Pandabpur, Antali, West Tripura without any declared address in the State of Mizoram. 28. In the present case, since for reasons recorded earlier, it has been held that the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated and the petitioner is entitled to be set at liberty, this Court deems it fit to provide that the petitioner, namely, Maram Miah, son of Abbas Miah shall be allowed to go on bail in connection with Sessions Registration Case No. 452/2023 A/o Excise Case No. N-200 under Sections 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 on furnishing bail bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs) only with the two sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant and one surety shall be a permanent resident of Aizawl subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions: 1) The accused/petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the case is disposed of; and 2) That the accused/petitioner 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court; and 3) That the accused/petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the one Page No.# 11/11 of which he is accused; and 4) That the accused/petitioner shall submit details of his adhaar card and passport, if any, before the Trial Court, which will be subjected to verification; and 5) That the accused/petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior permission; and 6) Any other conditions that the learned Trial Court may deem fit to ensure participation of the accused/petitioner in the Trial. 29. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of. 30. The TCR along with copy of this order be returned forthwith to enable the Trial to proceed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant