Page No.# 1/11 GAHC030006392026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./82/2026 Sh. Ezra Lal Zung Kai S/o Duh Cung Thang, Khawmawi, Tiau, Myanmar, presently in Central Jail, Aizawl VERSUS Union of India represented by the Sr. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Rebecca Lalzawmpuii Advocate for the Respondent : B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 17.09.2026 Heard Ms. Rebecca Lalzawmpuii, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Johnny L. Tochhawng, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Page No.# 2/11 2. The present application is filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act praying for grant of bail to the petitioner namely Ezra Lal Zung Kai in connection with Criminal SR No. 15/2026, Ref: DRI Case No. 04/2025 dated: 26.07.2025 registered under 21(c), 23(c), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, ND&PS Act, Aizawl District, Aizawl, Mizoram. 3. The petitioner had been arrested in connection with the aforesaid case on 26.07.2025. Arguments were heard on 15.09.2026, since the only grounds on which the petitioner seeks a declaration that his arrest was illegal, and that he would be entitled to bail, are that the arrest intimation under Section 48 BNSS, 2023 did not sufficiently comply with the requirements as laid down by the Apex Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the arrest intimation given to the relative of the accused on 27.07.2025 was not only vague but devoid of all material particulars which could have facilitated the relative of the accused to make appropriate arrangements to pray for bail before the Remand Magistrate. 5. For the sake of convenience, the arrest intimation under Section 48, BNSS 2023, which was served on the accused on 26.07.2025 and on the relative of the accused on 27.07.2025, is reproduced herein below. Page No.# 3/11 “ARREST INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 48, BNSS, 2023 This is to inform you that Shri Ezra Lal Zung Kal (26 Years), s/o Duh Cung Thang, resident of Khawmawi, Tlau, Myanmar (Present) & Taung Phi La, Kalemyo, Myanmar (Permanent), has been arrested on 26.07.2025 at 14.00 Hrs. from DRI, Office, Aizawl Regional Unit, K. Lalnghakliana Bullding, Near H.P. Petrol Pump, Kulikawn, Alzawl, Mizoram - 796005 in connection with DRI, Aizawl, Seizure Case No. 04/CL/IMP/NDPS-HEROIN/DRI-AZL/2025-26 dated 26.07.2025 under Section(s) 41, 42, 43, & 44 of NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended). The arrested person has been informed of his/her right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his/her choice and has also requested that you be informed about the arrest, as per Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Received by: Col 26107125 26/07/25 (THANGCHONMANG TOUTHANG) Intelligence Officer Seizing Officer DRI, Aizawl Regional Unit THÀNG CHONMANG TOUTHANG Intelligence Officer Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Regional Unit, Aizawl.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid notice only reveals the seizure case number in connection with which the petitioner has been arrested and has quoted Section 41, 42, 43 & 44 of the NDPS Act, 1985, which in no manner does not display the grounds of the arrest of the petitioner. She has submitted that such intimation of arrest does not suffice the requirements of law and therefore continued detention of the petitioner thereafter requires the interference of this Court. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS gave the complete details of the case in connection with Page No.# 4/11 which the petitioner had been arrested and further the petitioner had also, at all times, been aware of the grounds of his arrest. He has submitted that the notice contained all material particulars which would facilitate the relative of the accused to take appropriate measures for his defense during his production and also at consequential stages. He says that this is reflected from the Order dated 27.03.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 51/2026 where the learned Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act had, on a Bail Application filed on behalf of the petitioner, observed as follows: “6. Perused the application as well as the case file and considered the submissions by learned counsels for both parties. It is seen as submitted by both parties that recovery of commercial quantities as mentioned above were made from a specially designed cavity made in the seized conveyance driven by the accused/petitioner with his co-accused Cung Lian Bawi on 26.07 2025 at 11:30AM followed by his subsequent arrest. That the grounds of arrest (at page 99 of charge sheet) and arrest intimation (at page 103 of charge sheet) were duly served to the accused/petitioner and his relative Mawitei nominated by the accused/petitioner that the court is satisfied that section 47 and 48 of BNSS are duly complies with by the prosecution. That the case was opened by Ld. Special PP on 19.03.2026 and hearing on charge is to be conducted on 14 04.2026. From the available evidence on record and considering the fact that the seized contrabands were concealed in a sophisticated and deliberate manner in a Specially designed cavity in the seized vehicle driven by the accused/petitioner duly established prima facie case against him that there is no reasonable belief to presume his innocence, the fact that the accused/petitioner is a Myanmar national also poses risk of flight/absconding. Therefore, the court opines that the rigors of section 57 of the Act is not satisfied, hence, the application is rejected and disposed of.” Page No.# 5/11 8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has thereafter again drawn the attention of this Court to the Order dated 19.05.2026, passed in Bail Application No. 188/2026. The learned Trial Court, while considering the prayer for bail of the petitioner, had for the second time noticed as below: “10. Perused the petition as well as the case file and considered the submissions by learned counsels for both parties. It is seen that charge sheet has been filed and the case if fixed for hearing on charge to be conducted on 01.06.2026. The Court finds that the requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 have been duly complied with by the investigating agency. The grounds of arrest and arrest intimation to the family members of the accused/petitioner and his co-accused were communicated to in a language known and understood by them, and the contention that the arrest grounds were vague or mechanical is not supported by the record. The arrest intimation was duly communicated, and the fact that acknowledgment was made on the following day does not invalidate the arrest process.” 9. He has accordingly submitted that the present Bail Application does not require any further consideration of the Court and may be rejected. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Order dated 20.04.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 15/2026 wherein this Court had noticed as follows: “10. Perused the petition as well as the case file and considered the submissions by learned counsels for both parties. It is seen that charge sheet has been filed and the case if fixed for hearing on charge to be conducted on 01.06.2026. The Court finds that the requirements under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 have been duly complied with by the investigating agency. The grounds of arrest and arrest intimation to the family members of the accused/petitioner and his co-accused were communicated to in a language known and understood by them, and the contention that the arrest grounds were vague or mechanical is Page No.# 6/11 not supported by the record. The arrest intimation was duly communicated, and the fact that acknowledgment was made on the following day does not invalidate the arrest process. 11. The Court also finds that there is a strong prima facie case against the accused based on the recovery of a commercial quantity of heroin from concealed cavities in the vehicle in which he was driving/travelling. The FSL report confirms that the seized substance is heroin. The issue of conscious possession is a matter for trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the bail stage. 12. The Court observes that procedural objections regarding the place of search and shifting of the vehicle to the DRI office do not vitiate the investigation, as no prejudice has been shown by the accused so far. The Court is of the view that in light of the recovery of commercial quantity contraband, the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are clearly attracted. The Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true. Therefore, it is found that the accused has failed to satisfy the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected and disposed of.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that unless sufficient material is disclosed to the relative of the accused in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, the defense of the accused at the time of his production is severely hampered, and it has been the consistent view of the superior courts that incapacity to defend would be counted as a violation of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. She has renewed her prayer for consideration of bail to the petitioner. 12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the judgment Page No.# 7/11 of the Apex Court in the State of Meghalaya VS Sonam Raghuvanshi reported in 2026 SCC OnLine 1392, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows, “11. We find that the respondent is not entitled for bail, both on merits and on the grounds discussed by both the Courts. There is a fundamental difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has to see the prejudice caused to the accused. In the facts of the instant case, it is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. Hence, the case of the respondent falls within the second category discussed above. The respondent has also not taken the said plea at the earlier point of time, having done so only on her 4th Bail Application before the trial court.” 13. I have gone through the notice given to the petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS. 14. In the present case, I find that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, save and except quoting the seizure case number, does not divulge any further information which can be construed to be a ground of arrest of the petitioner. I have also noticed that the sections quoted therein do not indicate the offences committed by the petitioner. There is also no indication as regards the quantum of alleged contraband which had been seized or confiscated or the manner in which the petitioner is sought to be connected to the alleged seizure. Page No.# 8/11 15. Accordingly, in the present case, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present case would fall in a category where, although an arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has been served upon the relative of the accused, there is a total absence of any grounds of arrest reflected therein. 16. It is true that, had any grounds of arrest been reflected in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS in the present case, this Court would have exercised restraint from going into the adequacy or otherwise of the grounds given and/or considered the prejudice caused . In the total absence of any grounds being reflected in the notice being served upon the relative of the accused, I am of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner thereafter is required to be interfered with. 17. In view of the above, this Court finds that the requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS, which is mandatory, as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 162, having not been complied with, the petitioner, namely, Sh. Ezra Lal Zung Kai, deserves to be enlarged on bail in connection with Criminal SR No. 15/2026, Ref: DRI Case No. 04/2025 dated: 26.07.2025. It has been pointed out that the applicant is a resident of Myanmar and no known address, either temporary or permanent, in India has been furnished before this Court. Page No.# 9/11 Therefore, the following conditions are imposed on the grant of bail: 1. The Custodial authority shall have the petitioner registered with the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) and/or the Senior Superintendent of Police, CID (Special Branch), Aizawl and/or local civil authorities and furnish the details of registration to the jurisdictional Court at the earliest; and 2. The accused must deposit his passport, if any, with the jurisdictional court; and 3. That the accused/petitioner shall submit details of his intended place of residence during the period of bail and shall also submit details of “HRIATPUNIA” issued by the President of the Village Council where he intends to reside, which will be subject to verification; and 4. After satisfaction of the above formalities, and in the event that he is not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, he shall be released on furnishing bail bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with two sureties of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, provided that one surety has to be a government servant and one surety shall be a permanent resident of Aizwal. 5. The accused/petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Page No.# 10/11 learned Trial Court without prior permission; and 6. He shall report every Saturday at the jurisdictional police station. 7. The accused/petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on all dates fixed from time to time till the case is disposed of and any absence, if not explained to the satisfaction of the Learned Trial Court, shall render the bail to be cancelled; and 8. The accused/petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court; and 9. The accused/petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the one of which he is accused; and 10.Any other conditions that the learned Trial Court may deem fit to ensure participation of the accused/petitioner in the Trial. Violations of any terms and conditions would render the bail granted liable to be cancelled. 18. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of. Page No.# 11/11 JUDGE Comparing Assistant