Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005812026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./75/2026 Smt. K.C Vanlalhmangaihi D/o K.C Lalrozauva, Khawzawl Vengthar, Khawzawl VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr Laltanpuia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 15.09.2026 Heard Mr. Laltanpuia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, praying of grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Excise & Narcotics Case No. Ex- N-182/2026 u/s 21(c) of NDPS, Act. Page No.# 2/4 3. The petitioner was arrested on 06.07.2026 at about 5:30 pm and produced before the learned remand Magistrate. However, it is a matter of record which is not contested to by the learned Addl. PP, that the petitioner had been released on PR bail on 08.07.2026, upon her production, since she was found not to be fit to be detained in custody. 4. The petitioner had thereafter, undergone treatment and she was released from treatment on 10.07.2026. Since the petitioner had been released on PR bond for undergoing the treatment, she continued to remain on the PR bond and she appeared before the case I.O on 22.07.2026. She was thereafter detained by the case I.O and on 23.07.2026, she was produced before the learned Magistrate again. 5. On such production, and on the prayer made by the I.O to remand the petitioner to Judicial custody till further investigation is completed, the learned Magistrate had remanded the accused to Judicial custody till 24.07.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner has continued to remain in Judicial custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, on her very first production, was not found fit to be detained in custody and had been released. It is an unfortunate matter that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS alleged to have been served upon Ms. Rebek Lalramliani, on behalf of the petitioner, did not contain any of the grounds of arrest regarding the petitioner. He submitted that it is another matter that even after her production, before the learned remand Magistrate on 23.07.2026, no further notices under Section 48 of the BNSS had been supplied either to her or to any of her close relatives. Therefore, since the right of the petitioner to be informed about the Page No.# 3/4 ground of arrest along with the mandate upon the arresting authority to inform the friend, family or relative of the petitioner regarding the ground of arrest, having been violated, the arrest of the petitioner and her further detention has been rendered illegal and the petitioner would be entitled to be released on bail. 7. The learned Addl. PP has also produced the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS purported to have been served upon the friend, family, relative of the accused and I find that it is the same notice which has been annexed to the bail petition. The notice under section 48 of the BNSS does not in any manner divulge the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this is the first time that the petitioner has moved the application and therefore, the embargo laid down by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Meghalaya Vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1392 would not apply to the present case. He has further submitted that since there is an apparent violation of the conditions of article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the rigorous of Section 37 would not apply to the present case. 9. The learned Addl. PP has submitted that the petitioner does know well the grounds of her arrest and even in the PR bond, the petitioner has specifically understood that she had been arrested in connection with the Excise Case N.o 182/2026 where the seizure of 265 phials of cough syrup along with codeine phosphate had been made known to her. 10. Having gone through the contents of the bail petition, upon hearing the Page No.# 4/4 learned counsel for the parties and also going through the records produced by the learned Addl. PP, it is seen that the notice under Section 48 of the BNS had not been appropriately served upon the friend, family or relative of the accused/arrested person. 11. Accordingly, the continued detention is found to be illegal. 13. The petitioner namely, K.C. Vanlalhmangaihi (Age 40), shall therefore, entitled to be released on bail in connection with Excise & Narcotics Case No. Ex-N-182/2026 u/s 21(c) of NDPS, Act on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court NDPS, Aizawl District, Aizawl. 14. The learned Special Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Aizawl would be at liberty to impose such other conditions that may be necessary to ensure the presence of the petitioner during the investigation and also ensure that the petitioner does not hamper or tamper with the investigation in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Aizawl, without prior written permission of the I.O and the learned Judge. 15. Bail Application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant