Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030001592026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./13/2026 Sh. Lalhmangaihzuala S/o Zova, Vengthar, Vairengte, Kolasib District VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalthangmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 24.03.2026 Heard Ms. Vanlalmuanawmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner by filing this petition under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 prays for his enlargement on bail. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner along with another co-accused person were arrested on 27.09.2024 in connection with recovery of a total 35 kilograms of contraband substance suspected to be Methamphetamine. The contraband substance weighing 17 kilograms was recovered from the auto rickshaw driven by the petitioner bearing registration No. MZ05 A 8955 while the contraband substance weighing 18 kilograms was recovered from the auto rickshaw driven by the co-accused person bearing registration No. MZ05 B 1904. Accordinlgy, Vaivakawn Police Station Case No. 44/2024 dated 27.09.2024 under Section 22(c), 25 & 29 of the ND&PS Act was registered and investigation conducted. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the case I/O and as many as six (6) prosecution witnesses had been named to prove the case of the prosecution and against the accused persons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on today, five (5) Page No.# 3/7 prosecution witnesses have been examined and that one (1) of the prosecution witness has expired. 4. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has no involvement to the case and in fact, he was only hired to deliver the goods, which he agreed to do so in good faith. He submits that the petitioner was not of the knowledge about the contents of the goods that has to be delivered and therefore, the petitioner is innocent. She further submits that the co-accused person had also filed Bail Application No. 2/2026 and this Court upon considering the same vide Order dated 26.02.2026 had granted bail primarily on the ground that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him in writing as mandated by the Apex Court decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2356 and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 INSC 414. 5. The learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the arrest/court surrender form wherein, against Serial No. 8, it is stated that the accused after being informed on the grounds of arrest and his legal rights was taken into custody on 27.09.2024 at 11 pm in Vaivakawn Police Station. She submits that the contents of the form, which was basically a format and by any means do not meet the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing in terms of the Apex Court decision. She therefore submits that for this Page No.# 4/7 reason and also on the ground that the co-accused person has already been released on bail, the principles of parity is also attracted and therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail. In addition to the above two (2) authorities, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799. 6. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the arrest/court surrender form would go to indicate that the petitioner is aware as to why he has been arrested since recovery of the contraband substance has been made from his auto rickshaw driven by him. She further submits that the fact of the petitioner having approached the learned Trial Court for bail subsequent to his arrest would also go to indicate that the petitioner is aware of the ground of his arrest and was represented by a legal counsel. Such being the case, the petitioner cannot say that he is not in the knowledge about the reason for his arrest. As regards parity, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the nature of involvement of the accused person is not similar in view of the fact that recovery was made from two (2) separate auto rickshaws. Therefore, the principles of parity cannot be applied without taking into account the decree of involvement of the petitioner in the case compared to the co-accused person. Under the circumstance, she submits that since trial is at the advanced stage, Page No.# 5/7 the petitioner may be released on bail, as prayed for. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the TCR that has been sent to this Court. 8. The petitioner as may be noticed was arrested on 27.09.2024 on the ground of the recovery of the alleged contraband substance suspected to be Methamphetamine. The arrest/court surrender form annexed to the Bail Application at Serial No. 8 merely provides that the petitioner being informed of the grounds of arrest and his legal rights was taken into custody and that intimation was given to his wife. Apart from this, no material has been placed before this Court nor available in the TCR or the written grounds of arrest having been furnished to the petitioner. 9. The Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) in the given facts of that case has held that the reasons for arrest is not similar with grounds of arrest. That while reasons for arrest may be for prevention of the accused person from committing any further offence of proper investigation of the offence. But in case of grounds of arrest, the same is personal to the arrested person and the same is required to be communicated in writing and if not done so, the same would amount to violation of the constitutional rights of the arrested person provided under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court Page No.# 6/7 coming to such a conclusion had relied upon the decision of the same Court rendered in case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. 10. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it is seen that the said would squarely apply to the present case as arrest was made after delivery of the above judgments of the Apex Court. Further, the co-accused person who in fact was arrested for possession of 18 kilograms of suspected Methamphetamine has also been released on bail by this Court vide Order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 2/2026. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor is correct in submitting that principles of parity cannot be applied simply without considering the decree of involvement of each of the accused persons. 11. In the present case, it is however noticed that there are no materials to distinguish the nature of involvement of the petitioner and the co-accused person and therefore, in absence of which, this Court is inclined to accept the fact that the petitioner is entitled to parity for being given bail. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon his furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one (1) surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court (Fast Track Court, Kolasib) subject to the following conditions:- (1) The petitioner shall not abscond and cooperate with the remaining Page No.# 7/7 trial. (2) The petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence or try to influence any other witnesses. (3) The petitioner shall not commit any illegal activities including any offence under the ND&PS Act. Violation of the above bail conditions will entail cancellation of the bail. 12. The Bail Application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant