Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030005652026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./72/2026 Smt. Ramdinmawii D/o Rolianthanga, R/o H.No. EL024, Electric veng, Champhai, Near Xpressbees Delivery VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Commissioner, Excise and Narcotics Dept. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Vanlalhriata Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 13.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, praying for the grant of bail to the petitioner, who was arrested on 17.06.2026 in connection with Excise Case No. EX N-169 of 2026 under Section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act. 1985. Page No.# 2/6 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 16-06-2026 at 11:15 PM, 350 grams of suspected heroin was seized from a small truck, and the driver of the truck, along with two suspected receivers, were arrested on the same date. The heroin was packed in 30 soap cases. Upon registration of the FIR, investigation was endorsed to a sub-inspector, and the inventory was prepared and samples drawn on 17-06-2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class - V, Aizawl. The arrested persons were remanded to custody, and based on the statement of a co-accused, the present petitioner was arrested by another sub- inspector on 17-06-2026 at 7:15 AM from Champhai. The co-accused had made an allegation that the present petitioner sent 20 soap cases of suspected heroin. The present petitioner was produced before the learned Remand Magistrate on 17-06-2026, and she was thereafter remanded to judicial custody on 19-06-2026. The petitioner has languished behind bars thereafter till date. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she does not have any previous criminal record of similar nature, and this is the first time that she has been arrested in connection with a case under the ND&PS Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that before arresting the petitioner, the arresting authority did not reduce into writing any information regarding the requirement of her arrest, and as such, the arrest procedure was in violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on the basis of a statement made by a co-accused, and even the mobile phone of the petitioner had not been seized in the instant case. However, the mode of identification of the petitioner, as would be evident from the records, was allegedly the phone number. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no contraband article had been recovered from Page No.# 3/6 her possession, and she being a permanent resident of Champhai district, there is little or no chance of her absconding if she is released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 08-08-2023, passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 28 of 2023, to impress upon this Court that when the arrest violates the provisions of section 42 of the ND&PS Act, the arrest is vitiated. The petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail during at least the investigation period. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the following citations: 1. Karnail Singh vs State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 2. Sarija Band vs. State, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 266. 3. Lalbiakkima vs State of Mizoram, Bail Appl. No. 28/2023 4. State vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 63 5. Dimsiannem @ Pricilla vs. State of Assam, Bail Appl No. 2090/2022 6. Phundremayum Yas Khan vs State, reported in 2023 Supreme (Del) 2293 5. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, has, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been charged under the provisions of section 21(c) of the ND&PS Act, which involves a commercial quantity, and therefore, unless this Court is satisfied of the mandatory bar under section 39 of the ND&PS Act, are satisfied, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. The learned public prosecutor has further submitted that the assertion of the petitioner, that provisions of section 42 of the ND&PS Act have been violated in the present case, is without any basis, since at the first instance, the information had been recorded regarding the tracing of a vehicle suspected to be carrying heroin illegally. It is in the course of that investigation that the Page No.# 4/6 present petitioner has been placed under arrest. The learned PP has further submitted that in view of the proviso to section 42, it cannot be said that the arrest of the petitioner was vitiated in any manner. She has submitted that therefore, the instant bail petition does not require any further consideration. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and I have also perused the materials available on record, including the authorities relied upon by the parties. 7. The power under section 42 relating to entry, search, seizure, and arrest without warrant or authorization has been discussed by the courts of law on innumerable occasions and therefore does not call for a detailed discussion herein. It is settled that the source of knowledge or belief has to be taken down by the arresting officer concerned or an officer authorized on his behalf in writing, before he makes a search or entry, search, seizure, or arrest without warrant or authorization. The requirement to record the grounds of belief before making such entry and search is mandatory, including the requirement to send a copy of the same within a period of 72 hours to his immediate superior officer. 8. In the present case, from the materials available before this Court, it is noticed that no such knowledge or information about the commission of an offense under the NDPS Act had been taken down in writing prior to the arrest of the petitioner by either the arresting authority or the investigating officer. The Constitutional bench of the Apex Court in Karnal Singh versus State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539, had held that where the police officer does not record the information at all and does not inform the official superiors at all, it would be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Page No.# 5/6 9. On a perusal of the records available with the case, it is seen that the arresting officer, who was not the investigating officer, had, in the case diary maintained, recorded on 17-06-2026 that on 16-06-2026 at around 10:00 PM, she had received a requisition for arrest of a female individual who carried a particular phone number. Accordingly, she was located on the same night, but due to her health condition, she was brought to the CHS, Champhai under escort, and she was arrested on 17-06-2026 at 7:15 AM at the police station. Therefore, it cannot be the case that the arresting authority had little or no time to enter the information received by the arresting authority, more so when it is an ongoing investigation and when the arrest was made several hours after the arresting authority had received the request for her arrest, and the present petitioner had allegedly been traced out. 10. Having regard to the mandatory nature of compliance with section 42 of the NDPS Act and also having regard to the fact that no recovery of any contraband was made from the petitioner at the time of her arrest, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is required to be granted the privilege of bail at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely Smt. Ramdinmawii, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Excise case No. EX.N 169/2026 on furnishing a bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be a local permanent resident of Aizawl, having his or her own property, and which facts shall also be required to be certified by the Local Council concerned, to the satisfaction of the Learned Jurisdictional Court. The petitioner shall participate and cooperate in the investigation, shall not hamper the investigation or tamper with any evidence, and shall appear before the Ld. Page No.# 6/6 Courts and the investigating officer as and when he is required and called upon to do so. While on bail, the petitioner shall not indulge in commission of any offence under the NDPS Act. Violation of any of the conditions would entail recall of the privilege of bail granted. 12. Nothing in this order shall affect either the investigation or the trial proceedings, if initiated. 13. Bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant