Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004562026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./57/2026 Sh. Thangchunga S/o Sh. Rallian, R/o Chin Usi, Halkha, Chin State, Present Address- Chanmari West T Section, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 22.07.2026 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed by the petitioner for his bail, in connection with NDPS Case no. 25/2026 arising out of Excise Case No. N-1/26 registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The facts of the case is that the excise official upon receiving the information that the petitioner was in possession of Page No.# 2/5 contrabands i.e. methamphetamine and that he was about to sell the same, reached the particular place with his team and the petitioner was intercepted on the road side at Chanmari West, while he was attempting to sale the said contrabands. The petitioner was interrogated upon and he further disclosed that he had more of the said contrabands at his residence. It was also stated by the excise official that in presence of the witnesses, the house of the petitioner was searched and that the petitioner from his bed room, inside the wooden almirah produced one blue colored bag containing three brown color cartoons and upon opening of the same, methamphetamine was found kept inside and the same was seized on the same date at around 04:30 pm i.e. on 06.01.2026. 3. The officials from the excise department thereafter reported the said seizure and arrest, to the Officer-In-Charge of the excise and narcotics and in the said intimation, it was specifically stated that grounds of arrest as well as intimation of arrest were given to the relatives of the accused person and that the grounds of arrest were also duly explained to the petitioner and that the same was recorded through audio and video modes. The investigation thereafter was completed and a charge sheet was submitted on 04.02.2026. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was arrested on 06.01.2026 and since then he has been inside the jail. The learned Counsel also submits that the trial is on and one witness was examined till date. She further submits that according to the charge sheet, six persons were arrayed as prosecution witnesses and examination of five more witnesses are yet to be held. 5. The main grounds of challenge raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is the violation of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS. She has also raised violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. She submits that although a notice was Page No.# 3/5 prepared and signature of the petitioner was taken in the said notice meant for intimating the grounds of arrest, the petitioner had not received the written copy thereof. She submits that a copy containing the grounds of arrest should be given in writing to the accused person but the same has not been complied with in the instant case. She also submits that a notice was served under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 on the wife of the petitioner but then the said notice was prepared in English language and that the wife of the petitioner does not understands English. She submits that the grounds of arrest to the wife of the petitioner should have been given in local language. She further submits that there is violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act in the instant case. She stated that apart from the fact that grounds of arrest were not properly served upon the petitioner as well as on the relatives of the petitioner, there are discrepancies in the official records such as the weight of the seized articles shown in seizure memo differs from the weight shown in the inventory prepared by the authorities as well as other discrepancies. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on several judgments to substantiate her contentions. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State states that there is no violation of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 for the reason that the grounds of arrest containing the details of the offence, was given to the petitioner and the same was also explained to him and the signature of the petitioner was taken. The contention of the petitioner that the signature was simply taken of the petitioner but the document containing the grounds of arrest was not given to him, is not correct in view of the fact that the petitioner had himself put his signature on the said document. She further submits that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS was given to the wife of the petitioner and that wife had put her signature on it. She further Page No.# 4/5 submits that there is no violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act. 7. I have heard the Counsels and I have also gone through the records. 8. As far as the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS is concerned, it could be seen that the entire facts of the case has been jotted down in the same, to the effect that information was received and in pursuance to that information, they reached the place of occurrence as well as the house of the petitioner and contrabands were recovered from him. In the said notice, it was also intimated that the petitioner has the right to engage a lawyer and take legal remedies under the law. In the said notice, it is also reflected that the petitioner has put his signature therein. 9. With regard to the grounds of arrest given to the wife of the petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS, it is seen that the details of the case has been intimated to the wife of the petitioner and even the time and date of arrest was intimated to her and that the wife of the petitioner has put her signature in the said notice. To the contention that the said notice was given in English language and not in vernacular, this Court returns the findings that in the said notice it was written that the nationality of the wife of the petitioner is with the country of Myanmar and if at all, for the sake of arguments, it is stated that it should have been given in the language understood by the wife of the petitioner, it is unknown as to whether it should have been given in the local language of the place where the petitioner was arrested or in local language of the Myanmar. Further it is seen that she has put her signature in the said document, in English script which proves that she is aware of the English language. As such, the said contention does not hold good. 10. It is also seen that the Excise Officer had jotted in the case diary that the Page No.# 5/5 grounds of arrest were given to the relatives of the accused person along with the intimation of arrest and also that the grounds of arrest were explained to the accused person and that the same was recorded in audio and video form. 11. With regard to the other contention that Section 52 of the NDPS Act was violated, the same is not reflected in the records of the case neither in the pleadings. Be that as it may, the rest of the witnesses are yet to be examined. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. 13. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant