Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030004542026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) (AIZAWL BENCH) Bail Application No. 56 of 2026 1. Shri. SH. Lalrammuana S/o:- SH. Lianhmingthanga, R/o: - Armed Veng South, District: - Aizawl, State: - Mizoram … APPLICANT. -Versus- 1. The State of Mizoram, Represented by the Secretary, Home Department. Mizoram … RESPONDENT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the applicant: Mr. J. H. Ricky Lalruatfela, Adv. Advocates for the respondent: Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram Date of order : 22.07.2026 Page No.# 2/7 ORDER Heard Mr. J. H. Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that by filing this application, the applicant seeks his release on bail. The application is filed under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. [2.] The learned counsel submits that the applicant was arrested on 27.05.2026 at AOC Veng, Lawngtlai in connection with recovery of 9.807 kilograms of suspected Methamphetamine (10,000 tablets) kept in ten (10) bundles and concealed inside one empty stabilizer which was kept in the dickey of a Bolero car under registration No. MZ-06-4625. At that relevant time, the applicant and one Mr. Lalrinpuia were the occupants of the said car. As a result, they were arrested and Excise Case No. EXN-89/2026, LTI was registered on 28.05.2026 under Sections 22(c) & 25 of the ND&PS Act. [3.] The learned counsel submits that the alleged contraband substance was not recovered from the physical possession of the applicant but from the dickey of the car concealed in one empty stabilizer. The learned counsel submits that the seizure and arrest memo also discloses that there has been procedural irregularities affecting the legality of the arrest. Although, the arrest memo indicates that the grounds of arrest was communicated to the applicant but Page No.# 3/7 there is no material to show that a separate intimation was furnished to any relative, friend or nominated person of the applicant. Therefore, Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS having been violated, the applicant should be released on bail. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 INSC 162, (ii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 INSC 1288, (iii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414, (iv) Thangngaihlian Vs. State of Mizoram & Anr., 2025:GAU-MZ:229, and (v) Hemkhochon Touthang Vs. State of Mizoram, 2026:GAU-MZ:177. [4.] Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, on the other hand, submits that the applicant has misrepresented before this Court by alleging that the grounds of arrest and the intimation of arrest were not given to him and to his relatives respectively. She submits that the grounds of arrest was indeed communicated to the applicant on 27.05.2026 and as a token of acceptance, he has put his signature on the body of the grounds of arrest. Further, the intimation of arrest as required under Section 48 of the BNSS was prepared and intimation given to the brother of the applicant. She submits that Page No.# 4/7 the learned counsel for the applicant also does not deny the fact that the arrest intimation was given to the brother of the applicant over phone. [5.] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, submits that from the “Entry-III” made in the Case Diary, it can be clearly seen that the grounds of arrest was explained to the arrested persons in the language known to them at the place of occurrence and given to them in writing once they are returned back to the Excise & Narcotics Office at Lawngtlai on the same night. Likewise, from “Entry-V” in the Case Diary, it can be seen that the relatives of both the accused persons were communicated immediately after they were brought back from the place of occurrence. The Arrest Intimation was explained in a language known to them and a copy of the Arrest Intimation was also provided. [6.] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the grounds of arrest and the intimation of arrest along with seizure and arrest memo were all produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lawngtlai district, Lawngtlai on 28.05.2026 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate has appended her signature in the body of each of the documents. The same, therefore, meets the requirement of Section 48(4) of the BNSS. She, therefore, submits that the bail application has no merit and the same should be rejected. [7.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival Page No.# 5/7 parties and I have perused the materials available on record. [8.] The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that Section 47 & Section 48 of the BNSS having not being complied with, the arrest and detention of the applicant is vitiated and he should therefore be released on bail. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, the Case Diary was requisitioned by this Court, since the bail application only contains the seizure and arrest memo and the report of arrest submitted by the Arresting Authority before the Officer-in- Charge, Excise & Narcotics Station, Lawngtlai. The seizure and arrest memo, apart from the other materials also provides that the ground on which the applicant and the co-accused person were arrested have been informed to them. [9.] “Entry-III” dated 27.05.2026 in the Case Diary indicates that the grounds of arrest was explained to the arrested persons in the language known to them at the place of occurrence and the same was also given to them in writing when the parties returned from the place of occurrence to the Excise & Narcotics Office, Lawngtlai. A copy of the grounds of arrest, prepared and furnished to the applicant, has been scanned and pasted against the entry made in the Case Diary. The same goes to show that the applicant has been informed about the alleged offences committed by him and that he has the right to defend himself Page No.# 6/7 against remand and seek bail by engaging a lawyer of his choice. That the offences alleged to have been committed by him is a non-bailable offence. The applicant has subscribed his signature as the token of receipt of the grounds of arrest. Further, “Entry-V” dated 28.05.2026 in the Case Diary, shows that the relatives of the arrested persons were communicated about the arrest immediately after the arrested persons were brought back to the Excise & Narcotics Office. The arrest intimation was explained in the language known to them and a copy of the arrest intimation was also provided. A scanned copy of the arrest intimation has also been pasted against the “Entry-V” in the Case Diary. The applicant at paragraph No. 7 of the bail application has stated that there is no material on record to show that a separate written intimation of arrest was furnished to any of the relative, friend, nominated person of the applicant. A copy of the arrest intimation pasted against and “Entry-V” in the Case Diary goes to show that such intimation was given to the brother of the applicant, who was a resident of Armed Veng South, Aizawl. [10.] Under the circumstance, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are not attracted to the present case. [11.] The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025) at paragraph No. 20.1.5 held Page No.# 7/7 that while Section 50A Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia to Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023) is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. [12.] The situation in the present case, however, is that the grounds of arrest has been communicated in writing to the brother of the applicant and which is clearly reflected in the Case Diary. In absence of any material, to the contrary, it has to be accepted that the arrest has been duly intimidated to the relatives of the accused in the manner prescribed in Section 48 of the BNSS and that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the applicant. [13.] This Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case, does not find it to be fit case for granting bail to the applicant on the ground taken by him. In the result, the bail application is rejected and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant