Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030001682026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./15/2026 Sh. Lalchhuanliana S/o Thangluaia (L) R/o Durtlang, Leitan Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS State of Mizoram and Anr. R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Home Department 2:Inspector Jason Lalrinchhan Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 20.04.2026 Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By filing the instant bail application under Section 483(1) of the BNSS 2023, read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985, the petitioner prays for his Page No.# 2/6 enlargement on bail. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was arrested in connection with the recovery of 11.118 kilograms of suspected methamphetamine on 12.01.2026 from a Mahindra Thar Roxx bearing Registration No. MZ-01-E-4632, near Chite Bridge in Aizawl. There were two occupants in the said vehicle and only one of them have been arrested since the arrested person stated that the other person was only accompanying him. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle and although he was not present at the time of recovery of the alleged contraband substance, he too was arrested on 12.01.2026 and made a co-accused person. It is stated that the investigation is not yet complete, and a charge sheet is yet to be filed. The petitioner applied for bail before the Special Judge, under ND&PS Act, but the same was rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court through the instant bail application. 4. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel submits that the main grounds for seeking bail is due to non-compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. Reffering to the grounds of arrest prepared under Section 47 of the BNSS, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not been given conclusive information regarding the grounds of his arrest and the relevant sections of law leading to his arrest. All that is mentioned is that the petitioner has violated Section 8(c) of the ND&PS Act. On the other hand, but the petitioner appears to have been charged with Sections 22(c), 25 and 29 of the ND&PS Act as well. Therefore, the petitioner should be set at liberty on account of non-compliance of Section 47 of the BNSS. 5. The learned counsel further submits that although the intimation of arrest of the petitioner was given to the wife of the petitioner on a next day of his arrest, i.e., on 13.01.2026, the arrest intimation however falls short of the Page No.# 3/6 requirement prescribed by Section 48 of the BNSS, in view of the fact that there is no mention about the reason for the arrest of the petitioner. All that is mentioned is that he was arrested on 12.01.2026, at 7:30 PM at Khatla, Aizawl, and he is in custody since then. The learned counsel submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Bail Application No. 1321 of 2025 (Kishor Ghosh @Kishore Ghosh Vs. The State of Assam), vide Order dated 09.05.2025, had granted bail to the arrested person for violation of Section 48 of the BNSS, after noticing that no such grounds for the arrest have been stated in the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, which otherwise is a mandatory requirement. Reliance was also placed to the Apex Court decision rendered in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799. 6. The learned counsel also submits that, in another case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Bail Application No. 12 of 2026 (Sh. F. Lalthangkhuma Vs. The State of Mizoram), vide Order dated 02.04.2026, had granted bail to the accused person on the ground that the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS did not contain the signature of the person to whom it was addressed, and also, the grounds of such arrest. The learned counsel therefore submits that, in the present case, since the arrest intimation is not prepared in terms of Section 48 of the BNSS, the petitioner should be released on bail. 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the petitioner has clearly been informed as to why he has been arrested, which can be seen from the grounds of arrest prepared under Section 47 of the BNSS. The petitioner has also been informed that he may consult his lawyer/advocate in connection with his arrest if he so desires and that he may avail legal assistance to seek appropriate remedy against his remand in judicial Page No.# 4/6 custody or Excise custody. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is, therefore, fully aware of the reason for his arrest and the legal assistance, which can be availed by him. 8. As regards the arrest intimation, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the wife of the petitioner has been clearly informed about the arrest of the petitioner and she has given her signature as a token of the receipt of the arrest intimation. Therefore, the purpose of Section 48 of the BNSS is accordingly served. She submits that since the matter is still under investigation, it is not desirable to release the petitioner on bail, as the investigation would get hamper or interfere with in the event of his release on bail. 9. I have considered the submissions by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. As may be noticed, the main projection made in the instant application is with regard to non-compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. Section 47 of the BNSS provides that the person arrested should be informed of the grounds of arrest and of the right to bail. A perusal of the grounds of arrest, dated 12.01.2026, prepared by the arresting authority, would go to show that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the recovery of 11.118 kilograms of methamphetamine and that it has been alleged that he is involved with the transportation of the contraband substance and therefore, there was a violation of Section 8(c) of the ND&PS Act. The petitioner has also been informed that he may consult a lawyer or an advocate to assist him and that he may also seek appropriate remedy to prevent him from being kept in judicial custody or Excise custody. As a token of receipt of the grounds of arrest, the petitioner has duly subscribed his signature on the body of the grounds of arrest. Therefore, it appears that there is substantial compliance of Section 47 Page No.# 5/6 of the BNSS Act, 2023. In so far as the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS is concerned, it is seen that the intimation is addressed to the wife of the petitioner and that she has appended her signature as a token of receipt of the same. However, what can be seen from the arrest intimation is that there is no indication as to why the petitioner has been arrested. It merely states that the petitioner was arrested on 12.01.2026 at 7:30 PM from Khatla, Aizawl and he has been in custody since then. 11. Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 may be abstracted for hereunder for ready perusal: “48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to relative or friend.—(1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district.” 12. From the above abstract, it can be seen that the police officer making arrest is required to forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and the place where the arrested person has been kept to any of his relatives, friends, or such other persons as disclosed by the arrestee. The information regarding such arrest cannot plainly be an information that the person has been arrested without mentioning the reason for the arrest. In other words, the basic requirement would be to inform not only of the arrest but also as to why the arrest has been made. Therefore, from the arrest intimation given to the wife of the petitioner in the instant case, it cannot be said that the same meets the requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS, as it does not disclose as to why the petitioner was arrested. Page No.# 6/6 13. In view of the above, this Court finds that Section 48 of the BNSS, which is mandatory, as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including Vihaan Kumar (Supra), having not been complied with, the petitioner, namely, Sh. Lalchhuanliana, should be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required. (2) The 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 persuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer. (3) The petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge, ND&PS Act, Aizawl and (4) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without giving him prior intimation with details of his place of stay or visit. 14. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 15. With the above observation, the Bail Application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant