Page No.# 1/10 GAHC030003832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./44/2026 Sh. Lalzokima S/o Lalremthara,R/o Zokhawthar, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. R/b the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Mizoram, Aizawl 2:The Officer-in-Charg Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. J H Ramneihmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. By way of the present bail application, the petitioner, namely, Shri. Lalzokima, seeks to be enlarged on bail in connection with Special Page No.# 2/10 Narcotics PS Case No. 34 of 2022, registered under Sections 21(c)/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, “the ND&PS Act”), wherein he was re-arrested on 26.09.2025. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.07.2022, at about 12:45 a.m., the Police allegedly received information regarding possession of contraband drugs at Zarkawt, Aizawl. Accordingly, the Police proceeded to the spot, where the petitioner was found near a parked vehicle. Upon being asked, the petitioner allegedly produced a polythene bag containing 60 soap cases of suspected heroin weighing 836 grams. The said substance was accordingly seized and the petitioner was arrested. Thereafter, the aforesaid case was registered under Sections 21(c)/25 of the ND&PS Act. Upon completion of investigation and examination of the seized substance by the FSL, charge sheet was submitted before the learned Trial Court. 4. In connection with the aforesaid case, the petitioner had initially preferred Bail Application No. 15 of 2023 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act before this Court, Aizawl Bench. The said application was dismissed by order dated 25.05.2023. Subsequently, Bail Application No. 45 of 2023 was preferred by the petitioner before this Court, which came to be allowed by order dated 13.10.2023 on health grounds, subject to the conditions that the petitioner furnish a bail bond of Rs.1 lakh with one surety of the like amount, appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required and not abscond during the trial. Page No.# 3/10 5. However, during the subsistence of the said bail, the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with Zokhawthar PS Case No. 52 of 2025 dated 04.07.2025, registered under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act. Thereafter, the bail earlier granted to the petitioner in the present case was cancelled by the learned Trial Court on 26.09.2025 upon his production before the said Court from Champhai District Jail. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Bail Application No. 29 of 2026 before the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, seeking his release on bail in the present case. The said bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge by order dated 13.02.2026. The petitioner thereafter instituted Bail Application No. 34 of 2026 before this Court. However, on account of a technical inadvertence/error, the said application was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application, by order dated 15.05.2026. Accordingly, the present bail application has been filed. 7. It appears from the record that after the petitioner was arrested in connection with the subsequent case, the bail earlier granted to him by this Court in connection with Special Narcotics PS Case No. 34 of 2022 was cancelled on 26.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl, reads as under :- “26.09.2025 : Accused on bail Lalzokima is absent. Surety is present. Accused Lalzokima is produced from judicial custody from Champhai District Jail. His bail bond is cancelled; surety is discharged. He is remanded into Page No.# 4/10 judicial custody till 08.10.2025 for production. Summon PW 3 for 23.10.2025 Issue Custody Warrant. CERTIFIED TRUE COPY Sd/- JUDGE Peshkar 14/7/26 Special Court, ND&PS Act. Special Court ND & PS Act Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl Aizawl District, Aizawl” Situated thus, the present bail application has been filed. 8. Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in custody for almost 342 days since his re-arrest. It is submitted that the trial is yet to progress substantially and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses had not commenced when the present application was filed. It is accordingly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 9. Learned counsel further submits that, in the subsequent Zokhawthar case, the allegation is essentially that the petitioner’s vehicle was used for transportation of contraband drugs and no contraband substance was recovered or seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that it was only on account of the said arrest that the bail earlier granted to the petitioner in the present case came to be cancelled. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in the subsequent case, namely, Zokhawthar PS Case No. 52 of 2025, by order dated 08.05.2026. Page No.# 5/10 10. Per contra, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the conduct of the petitioner during the period when he was on bail in the present case is relevant for consideration of his prayer for bail. It is submitted that during the subsistence of the said bail, the petitioner came to be implicated in two subsequent cases involving similar offences under the ND&PS Act, namely, Champhai PS Case No. 162 of 2024 under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act and Zokhawthar PS Case No. 52 of 2025 under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the ND&PS Act. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the trial in the present case has already commenced and there are six prosecution witnesses. The evidence of prosecution witness No. 1 is presently fixed before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the trial is likely to be concluded at an early date. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the present case involves commercial quantity of narcotic substance and, therefore, the statutory restrictions contained in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are attracted. It is submitted that prolonged incarceration by itself cannot automatically entitle an accused to bail when the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37 have not been satisfied. In support of her submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Balraj Singh alias Billa, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1058. 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the Page No.# 6/10 materials available on record. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially arrested in connection with Special Narcotics PS Case No. 34 of 2022, registered under Sections 21(c)/25 of the ND&PS Act, and was subsequently enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 13.10.2023 on health grounds. 15. The offence alleged against the petitioner involves commercial quantity of narcotic substance. Therefore, the provisions of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act are attracted. Section 37 of the ND&PS Act reads as under:- “[37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for 3 [offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless— (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.].” 16. Thus, in a case involving commercial quantity, the Court is required to be satisfied with regard to the twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND&PS Act, namely, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and Page No.# 7/10 that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The satisfaction of these conditions is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with merely on consideration of the general principles governing grant of bail. 17. The Apex Court in Balraj Singh (supra), while considering the scope of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, reiterated that in cases involving commercial quantity, consideration of the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is mandatory. Relying upon its earlier decisions, the Apex Court therein observed that the expression “reasonable grounds” contemplates something more than mere prima facie grounds and requires substantial and probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The Apex Court further reiterated therein that the mandatory requirement of Section 37 cannot be avoided while considering an application for bail in an offence involving commercial quantity. 18. In the present case, the second limb of the twin conditions assumes particular significance. The petitioner was earlier enlarged on bail by this Court in the present case. However, during the subsistence of the said bail, the petitioner came to be implicated in two subsequent cases involving similar offences under the ND&PS Act, namely, Champhai PS Case No. 162 of 2024 and Zokhawthar PS Case No. 52 of 2025. 19. The aforesaid subsequent conduct of the petitioner is a relevant and significant circumstance while examining whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The fact that the petitioner has subsequently been enlarged on bail Page No.# 8/10 in Zokhawthar PS Case No. 52 of 2025 does not, by itself, alter the position. The consideration under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is whether, on the materials before this Court, the Court can reasonably satisfy itself that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In the present case, the admitted position that, while enjoying the benefit of bail granted by this Court, the petitioner came to be implicated in two further cases involving similar offences weighs heavily against recording such satisfaction. 20. The submission that no contraband substance was recovered from the personal possession of the petitioner in the subsequent case also cannot, at this stage, be considered sufficient to overcome the aforesaid circumstance. The question before this Court is not whether the petitioner is ultimately liable to be convicted in the subsequent case, but whether the statutory requirement under Section 37 regarding his likelihood of committing an offence while on bail can be satisfied. In view of his subsequent involvement in cases under the ND&PS Act during the period when he was already enjoying the concession of bail, this Court is unable to record such satisfaction. 21. The submission regarding the period of incarceration also merits consideration. The petitioner has remained in custody for about 342 days since his re-arrest. It is true that the right to a speedy trial is an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and that prolonged incarceration may, in an appropriate case, constitute a relevant consideration for grant of bail. However, the same cannot be applied in a manner so as to render the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act nugatory. Page No.# 9/10 22. In Balraj Singh (supra), the Apex Court, while considering the plea of prolonged incarceration in a case involving commercial quantity, observed that the application of the principle relating to prolonged incarceration is not uniform and that what constitutes prolonged incarceration for the purpose of bail has not been laid down as an inflexible rule. In the said case, the Apex Court also took into consideration the fact that the accused had antecedents involving commission of offences of a similar nature and held that the requirement under Section 37 could not be dispensed with. 23. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone about 342 days of incarceration and, if found guilty, the offence alleged against him carries a maximum sentence which may extend to twenty years. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the quantity involved and, more importantly, the petitioner’s subsequent involvement in similar offences while on bail, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the period of incarceration, at this stage, is such as would justify his release on bail notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act. 24. It is also borne out from the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the trial has already commenced and there are six prosecution witnesses, with the evidence of prosecution witness No. 1 presently fixed before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the apprehension that the trial would remain indefinitely pending cannot, at this stage, be said to be well founded. The learned Trial Court shall, however, endeavour to proceed with the trial expeditiously, in accordance with law. Page No.# 10/10 25. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner had earlier been granted bail by this Court and, during the subsistence of the said bail, came to be implicated in two subsequent cases involving similar offences under the ND&PS Act, this Court is unable to record the requisite satisfaction that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Consequently, the mandatory twin conditions stipulated under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the ND&PS Act are not satisfied. 26. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the statutory rigours contained in Section 37 of the ND&PS Act operate against the petitioner. The discretion of this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail, therefore, cannot be exercised in his favour at this stage. 27. Accordingly, the prayer for bail stands rejected at this stage. 28. The present Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant