Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004392026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./54/2026 Sh. Thangchunga S/o Sh. Ralhrea R/oChin Usi, Halkha, Myanmar, P/A Chanmari West, Aizawl District, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl 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 13.08.2026 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This present Bail Application has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 r/w Section 37 of the ND&PS ACT in connection with his custody in Page No.# 2/5 SR No. 334/2023 A/o Special Narcotic P.S Case No. N-33/23) u/s 21(C)/29 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 3. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 18.05.2023 and his application for grant of privilege of bail by way of Bail Application No. 4/2025 was rejected by this Court vide Order dated 14.02.2025. The petitioner had thereafter preferred a second Bail Application bearing Bail Application No. 23/2025, which came to be allowed on 21.07.2025 by this Court. This Court had noticed the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner for more than two years, where only two out of the six witnesses had been examined, amounted to violation of his Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court in the earlier order granting him bail had noticed that the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would over ride the statutory embargo created under Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the ND& PS Act. The petitioner was thus released on bail on furnishing appropriate sureties before the learned Trail Court. 4. The petitioner was, however, re-arrested on 06.01.2026, at Aizawl 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. On arrest of the petitioner in connection with the NDPS Case No. 25/2026, his earlier bail bond Page No.# 3/5 stood cancelled and the sureties were discharged from the liability of surety by the Order dated 19.04.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the initial arrest of the petitioner in the year 2023 is also vitiated in law, since the provisions of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS had not been complied with at that stage. 5. The petitioner in this bail petition has submitted that the situation regarding the trial in Special Narcotics P.S. Case No. N/33 of 2023 has remained the same and only two of the witnesses cited by the prosecution had been examined as of date. She has accordingly prayed that the petitioner is required to be granted the privilege of bail again by this Court. 6. I have perused the scanned copy of the Trial Court Records. 7. It is seen that only two of the witnesses have till now been examined while other witnesses, despite summons being issued, have not appeared before the Court. 8. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned APP has submitted that the petitioner had been granted the privilege of bail by this Court and only about 4 and half months later, commercial quantity of contraband drugs was recovered from the residence of the petitioner, at his instance. The learned APP has submitted that even though the petitioner was granted the privilege of bail, it is apparent that Page No.# 4/5 he has misused the same and the sureties were not able to discharge their duties of restraining the petitioner from committing offences while being on bail. The learned APP has submitted that since both the cases involved commercial quantity of contraband, the twin conditions contained in ND&PS Act have to be satisfied before this Court would consider the grant of privilege of bail the petitioner herein. 9. We find force in the submission of the learned APP, that, in the present case, there are not enough reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner not guilty and with his arrest in the second case, that the petitioner would not be involved in criminal offences if allowed the privileged bail. 10. In so far as the argument for the petitioner regarding the short-comings in the notices of the 47 & 48 of the BNSS is concerned, this Court notices that, in the present case, the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled at the time when he was arrested for being involved in other similar offence and therefore, in view of this Court, any short comings in the notices in the 47 & 48 at the time of the arrest of the petitioner in the year 2023 has lost importance at a stage when the petitioner is facing two trails in offences of similar nature. It is also seen that in the earlier round of litigation when bail was granted to the petitioner, there was no submission made regarding the short-comings in the Page No.# 5/5 notices under Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS. 11. Having gone through the materials on record and for the reasons recorded herein above, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner in connection with SR. No. 334/2023 along with Special Narcotics P.S. Case No. N/33 of 2023 at this stage. 12. A copy of the order passed in Bail Application No. 57/2026 passed on 22.07.2026 is kept on record and marked as ‘X’. 13. Bail Application accordingly stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant