Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030000792026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4/2026 Sh. Lanunthara S/o Lalrintluanga, Dinthar Veng, Champhai VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Samuel L Pachuau Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 10.03.2026 Heard Mr. Samuel L. Pachuau, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483, BNSS read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act seeking release of the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with Champhai P.S. Case No. 142/2025 under Section 22(c)/29 NDPS Page No.# 2/5 Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant was arrested on 19.09.2025 in connection with recovery of 65 bundles of methamphetamine concealed in sand from a truck bearing registration No. MZ- 04-3223 near Zotlang, Champhai and since his arrest, he has been inside the custody. It is submitted that the truck was owned and driven by a third party and the driver was not apprehended nor the offending vehicle has been seized. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused applicant was not arrested from the place of recovery and he was taken from his residence at Dinthar Veng, Champhai, Mizoram at 2:00 AM in the morning along with his younger brother who was later on released on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been languished in the custody for over 172 days. It is submitted that no contraband, no mobile phone, no documents and no any incriminating article were recovered or seized from the petitioner’s person, residence or from any property under his control. The recovery of the alleged contraband article was made from Zotlang which is geographically distinct from the petitioner’s residence at Dinthar Veng. The learned counsel for the petitioner also doubted the compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act at the time of the arrest of the petitioner and the arrest of the accused petitioner was made Page No.# 3/5 entirely on alleged issued with the recovery made from a third party’s vehicle at a location unconnected to him. 6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab and State of Kerala vs. Rajesh wherein it is laid that a statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 arise only after proof of conscious possession. The learned petitioner’s counsel submits that in the present case, the foundational fact of possession is absent. He further submits that this circumstances satisfied both conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. On the contrary, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that upon completion of investigation, the case is already been submitted into charge sheet against the accused applicant under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act. While referring to the records, she submits that the accused was arrested on 19.09.2025 at 6:00 AM and not at 2:00 AM as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the contraband item was recovered and seized from Zotlang, Champhai at about 7:30 AM and the contraband item was recovered and seized from the place where the accused stated to have disclosed. She further submits that the seizure contraband item measuring about 70.200 kg which was later on sent for FSL examination has reported positive for HPLC-MS. Page No.# 4/5 Since the contraband item was recovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused from the place of occurrence being lead by the accused petitioner, the petitioner was in a conscious possession of the said contraband item. The reverse burden as contended by the petitioner shall be established at the trial stage and not at the stage of bail. As such, according to the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, the petitioner failed to overcome the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She further submits that the case is at the nascent stage of trial, the release of the accused at this stage would seriously hamper the trial. She also submits that earlier the bail application filed for released of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that there is a prima-facie case against him and no new ground for the present bail application has been brought by the petitioner. 8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that the accused was arrested for offence under Section 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act; the contraband item - a huge quantity of 70.200 kg of methamphetamine was recovered and seized on his disclosure and on completion of investigation having found sufficient material against him for commission of the alleged offence, the case was submitted into charge sheet and under the circumstances, the culpable mental state must be presumed against the accused under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. Under the circumstances, she prays for rejection of the bail. Page No.# 5/5 9. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the Trial Court Records. 10. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that on receipt of information, the accused was arrested on 19.09.2025 at about 6:00 AM and on his disclosure, 65 bundles of methamphetamine weighing around 70.200 kg was found concealed in sand, recovered and seized on the same day. The FSL report found the exhibit material positive of HPLC-MS and upon completion of investigation, on being found sufficient material against the accused, the police has submitted the case into charge sheet and the case is pending trial before the Trial Court. 11. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the accused and the incriminating material found on record against him for commission of the alleged offence and also considering that the trial of the case is yet to begun, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused at this stage. 12. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant