Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030006642026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./86/2026 Sh. Zohmingliana S/o Hrangmanliana, R/o Edenthar, Aizawl, Mizoram-796007 VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalthangmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 17-09-2026 Heard Mr. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS r/w Section 37 of the NDPS Act praying for enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Scan copy of the Trial Court Records call for has been received. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Page No.# 2/4 had been arrested on 18.02.2026 at around 9:45 pm and on his arrest, he had been served a notice purported to be under Section 47 of the BNSS. He submits that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS did not contain the relevant grounds of arrest and had merely informed the petitioner that the petitioner was accused of possessing/transporting/being a carrier of 354 grams of heroin. He submits that the circumstances under which the allegations had been levelled against the petitioner are not found in the aforesaid notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, purported to have been served upon the wife of the petitioner was in English and the wife of the petitioner was not conversant with the said language. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of this Court to the probable short comings in the sample drawn of the allegedly recovered narcotic. He has further submitted that the short fall in the procedure adopted by the Seizing Authority/Investigating Authority would lead to a presumption that the petitioner may be acquitted after the trial and further being a permanent resident of Edenthar Veng, Aizawl, there would be no apprehension that the petitioner would either abscond or indulge again in similar activities, in the event bail is granted. 5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the grounds regarding the short comings in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS had already been considered by the learned Trial Court in detail. She has further submitted that the signature of the wife of the petitioner on whom the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS had been served was in English and there is no indication in the records that the petitioner or the wife of the petitioner had informed the Arresting Authority that the wife of the petitioner was not Page No.# 3/4 conversant in English. She has further submitted that the issues regarding the short comings, if any, in the seizure/investigation process would be matter of trial, which are not to be considered at the stage of grant of bail. She has further submitted that prima facie, there is no indication that the rigors of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act would be satisfied in the present case and therefore, she has prayed for the rejection of the bail petition. 6. I have gone through the scan copy of the TCR, the notices under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS served upon the petitioner and his wife and I have also perused the Trial Court Records. 7. In the present case, I do not find any reason to differ with the reasoning of the learned Trial Court, insofar as the notices under Section 47 of the BNSS is concerned. There being nothing on record to show that the wife of the petitioner was conversant only in a particular language or that she was not conversant with English is also not reflected to have been informed either to the Arresting Authority or to the learned Remand Court on production. 8. In the State of Meghalaya Vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1392, the Apex Court has held that the ground of violation of Article 221 of the Constitution of India, if not taken on earlier occasion, while seeking bail on merits, the said grounds would not be available on later stage. On going through the orders passed in BA No. 252/2026, which was decided by the learned Judge, Special Court, ND&PS Act, 1985, I find that the petitioner had made no allegation regarding the failure of the friend of the petitioner/wife of the petitioner to understand the contents of the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS. Page No.# 4/4 9. I am also not convinced that in the present case, the requirements of Section 37, which are mandatory prior to grant of bail to an accused under the ND&PS Act are satisfied. Accordingly, the present bail petition is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant