Page No.# 1/2 GAHC030005762026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./25/2026 Sh. F. Lalrinsanga and Anr. S/o Pachhunga R/o Zotlang North Champhai, Mizoram 2: Sh. Zonunsang VERSUS 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 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 14.08.2026 Heard Ms. L. Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L.L. Fambawl, learned APP for the State. 2. This Court by order dated 11.08.2026 had observed as follows: “3. On the next date, the learned counsel for the petitioners shall address the Court as to whether it would be permissible to modify the conditions of the order dated 08.06.2026, passed by this Court in Crl.Pet. No. 10/2026 in an application filed under section 528 of the BNSS. The said order was applied by the learned Special Page No.# 2/2 Court (NDPS), Aizawl in its order dated 16.07.2026. 4. The petitioners in paragraph-4 of this petition have stated that the petitioners are financially incapable of furnishing security. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners shall address the Court as to whether a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties would not be treated as insufficient to release the sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- (Rupees twenty four lakh fifty thousand only) to the petitioners, which was seized in connection with the SR No. 417/2023 under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, when there is nothing in this petition which suggests that the net worth of the petitioners is more than Rs. 24,50,000/- (Rupees twenty four lakh fifty thousand only).” 3. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners, upon instruction, prays leave of the Court to withdraw this petition and to approach this Court in an appropriate jurisdiction. 4. Prayer is allowed. 5. Accordingly, the matter stands disposed of on withdrawal with liberty as prayed for. 6. It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the merit of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant