Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030001852026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./22/2026 Chingmuankim D/o Goumang R/o Thingkangphai Churachandpur District Manipur 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 : 09-04-2026 Heard Mr. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been preferred, praying for the grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Smt. Chingmuankim in connection with Crl. Tr (Excise) No. 226 of 2023 dated 14.08.2023 U/s 21(c) of the ND & PS Page No.# 2/6 Act, 1985. The petitioner was arrested on 13.08.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the absence of any notice under Section 50/50A of the Cr.P.C (as it existed then), the petitioner was never furnished the grounds of arrest, and further, her family, friends or relatives had also not been informed regarding her arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in view of the settled position in law that detention after an illegal arrest would be unconstitutional, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail during the remainder of the trial proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial is now at the stage of evidence by defence, and the petitioner has fully cooperated with the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there were 2 (two) co-accused in the case, and the other accused has already been granted bail by the order dated 05.03.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 5/2026 by this Court, on the ground that the arrest and detention of the petitioner suffered from violation of constitutional mandates. He has accordingly prayed that the prayer for granting bail to the petitioner with such conditions as may be deemed necessary be allowed by this Court. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mizoram, has submitted that there are prima facie chances of conviction of the petitioner in the trial and therefore, the prayer for bail does not require a consideration at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor has also drawn the attention of this Court to Page No.# 3/6 the seizure and arrest memo dated 13.08.2023 to submit that not only was the arrest of the petitioner witnessed and attested by independent witnesses, but the seizure and arrest memo also contains the grounds of arrest of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 Supreme (OnLine)(SC) 3630 would not apply to the present case, since the said judgment cannot be said to have a retrospective effect. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Varinder Kumar Vs. Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 321, judgments in criminal matters deserve to be given a prospective effect and therefore, the directions laid down in Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) would not apply to the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in Kanishk Sinha & Another Vs. The State of West Bengal & Another, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 411, to submit that unless stated otherwise, judgments of the course of record would be retrospective. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. There is no assertion made on behalf of the State that the arrest memo, as required under law, has been served upon the petitioner at any point in time after her arrest. Having regard to the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner had not been served with the mandatory arrest memo, the further detention of the petitioner has Page No.# 4/6 been rendered unconstitutional. A perusal of the seizure and arrest memo does not reveal that the grounds of arrest were specifically indicated the only other co-accused in the matter has been granted bail by the order dated 05.03.2026 passed in Bail Application No. 5/2026 without referring to the submissions on the prospective or retrospective application of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that when a co-accused has been granted bail on the same offence and who was also facing the same trial, and in view of the absence of the notices under Section 50 & 50A of the Cr.P.C (as they existed then) and in the absence of a formal arrest memo, the further detention of the petitioner would not be in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crl. SR No. 397/2023 reference Crl.Tr (Excise) No. 226 of 2023 pending in the Court of Special Court, ND & PS Act, Aizawl, Mizoram on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Court, provided that one of the bailers shall be a Government servant, serving either with the State or Central Government. The petitioner has declared herself to be a resident of a locality which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. The following conditions shall also be imposed upon the petitioner by considering her release on bail. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl without prior written permission; ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or Page No.# 5/6 promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall surrender her passport, if any, and if not already surrendered before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl. v) The petitioner shall not try to contact any of the witnesses by any mode including telephone, social media etc. vi) The petitioner shall furnish the present residential address with proof to the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl and shall not change the said residence without prior permission of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl. The learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl shall be at liberty to have the same verified in such manner as may be deemed fit. vii) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl as and when required to do so and in case of default, the Learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to form such opinion, including an opinion that the petitioner is trying to delay or escape the trial and on forming such opinion, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner; viii) the learned Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the Trial. ix) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. x) The prosecution shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. Bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 6/6 Comparing Assistant