Page No.# 1/12 GAHC030001832026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) Bail Application No. 20 of 2026 1. Hemkhochon Touthang S/o: Tongmang Touthang, R/o: Chikim Village, Tengnoupal, Chandel, State: Manipur … APPLICANT. -Versus- 1. The State of Mizoram Represented by the P.P., Mizoram … RESPONDENT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the applicant: Mr. M. Biswas, Adv. Advocates for the respondent: Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, P.P., Mizoram Date of order : 23.04.2026 ORDER Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram. [2.] By filing this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/12 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the applicant prays for grant of his bail. [3.] It is the case of the applicant that he was arrested by the Saitual Police on 04.12.2025 in connection with recovery of 1.324 kilograms of suspected heroin kept in 87 soap cases from the vehicle driven by the applicant, which is a Magnite Car bearing registration No. AS-01-EW-1037, which was proceeding from Manipur towards Aizawl. As a result, Saitual P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025 under Section 21(c)/25 of the ND&PS Act was registered. Since his arrest, the applicant is in jail. The applicant had not applied for bail before any Court prior to coming to this Court through the instant bail application. [4.] At the outset, Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that Section 48 of the BNSS has not been complied with by the Arresting Authority and thereby, there is a clear violation of the rights of the petitioner under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Referring to the Intimation Letter, which is annexed as Annexure – IV to the bail application, the learned counsel submits that the arrest intimation has not been given to the relative of the applicant but to the applicant himself and that too in Mizo language. He submits that the applicant belongs to Kuki community and does not understand Mizo language and therefore, the arrest intimation cannot by any means be considered as compliance of the Section 48 of the BNSS. In respect of his submission, the Page No.# 3/12 learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, (ii) Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine 1228 (iii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, (iv) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine 2356, (v) Order dated 28.10.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 3158 of 2025 (Sultana Begum & 3 Ors. Vs. State of Assam), (vi) Order dated 05.03.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 6 of 2026 (Sh. Jamminlal Touthang & Anr. Vs. State of Mizoram), (vii) Judgment dated 28.01.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 3157 of 2025 (Rashid Hoque Vs. Union of India), (viii) Order dated 02.04.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court Page No.# 4/12 in Bail Application No. 12 of 2026 (Sh. F. Lalthangkhuma Vs. State of Mizoram), (ix) Order dated 21.08.2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2025 (National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate), and (x) Order dated 20.04.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 15 of 2026 (Sh. Lalchhuanliana Vs. State of Mizoram & Anr.). [5.] The learned counsel thus submits that since the provision of Section 48 of the BNSS Act, 2023 has not been complied with, the applicant may be released on bail. [6.] Per contra, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, submits that she is not able to produce the Case Diary since the case Investigating Officer (IO) is undergoing training. She, however, submits that with the materials already available on record the instant bail application can be considered. She submits that she has been informed by the case I.O. that the applicant understands Mizo language and therefore the applicant cannot take a plead that he did not understand what was written in the arrest Intimation Letter, which he acknowledged by giving his signature. Page No.# 5/12 [7.] The learned Public Prosecutor, further submits that since the applicant is from the state of Manipur, it is not possible to give the intimation of arrest to the relative of the applicant and that is why the intimation was given the applicant and a phone call was made to his wife informing her why the applicant was arrested. Such being the case, Section 48 of the BNSS has been duly complied with. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that since there are materials to show that the applicant is aware as to why he is arrested and the information given to his wife of his arrest, the applicant cannot claim to be released on bail for non-compliance of Section 48. She submits that in fact a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar situation had accepted the fact that the Arrest Memo as well as the Seizure Memo indicated that the Investigating Officer made contact with the family members of the applicant intimating them the grounds of arrest and for that reason Court found the Sections 47 & 48 to be complied with. She submits that similar is in the instant case as well and therefore, bail may not be granted to the applicant. In this connection, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram, relies upon the Order dated 30.03.2026, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 8 of 2026 (Sh. Halal Uddin Vs. State of Mizoram & 2 Ors.). [8.] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties. The submissions made on behalf of the applicant by the learned Page No.# 6/12 counsel is confined to the violation of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. In order to appreciate the Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 the same is being re-produced here below:- “Section 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. (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub- section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.” [9.] From abstract made above, it may be seen that every police officer or other person making any arrest has to forthwith give information regarding the arrest and place where arrest was made and the person held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed by the arrestee. Page No.# 7/12 The Police Officer is also required to inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) of Section 48 as soon as he is brought to the police station. In the instant case, an intimation of arrest purportedly under Section 48 of the BNSS was prepared by the Police Officer concerned at Saitual Police Station in Mizo vernacular and which was addressed to the applicant himself stating that he was arrested in connection with the recovery of the contraband substances from his car. On his arrest, as per the desire of the applicant, information was given to his wife over phone, who was residing in the state of Manipur in the presence of the applicant himself. Further, the phone number of wife of the applicant was also recorded in the arrest intimation, the applicant thereafter has given his signature in the body of the arrest intimation. The question therefore is as to whether such an intimation to the arrestee himself and that too in Mizo vernacular language despite the fact that the applicant belongs to Kuki tribe from Manipur can be considered to be compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS. Further, whether any intimation in writing would have to be given to the relative of the applicant having regard to the true intent of Section 48 of the BNSS. [10.] In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the requirement of communicating grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the Page No.# 8/12 arrested person but also to his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person so as to make the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India meaningful and effective and failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that the grounds of arrest should not only be provided to the arrestee but also to his family members and relatives so that necessary arrangements are made to secure the release of the person arrested at the earliest possible opportunity so as to make the mandate the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India meaningful and effective, failing which such an arrest may be rendered illegal. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) had taken into consideration the earlier judgment of the same rendered in Harikisan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1962 SCC OnLine SC 117, wherein it was held that communication of the grounds detention to the detenu in writing and in a language which he understands is imperative and essential to provide an opportunity to detenu to making an effective representation against the detension. Reference was also made to the case of Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Vs. Union of India, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427, wherein, it was held that the grounds of detention must be communicated to the detenu in writing in a language he understands and if the grounds are only verbally explained the Page No.# 9/12 constitutional mandate of Article 22(5) is infringed. Of course, the above two (2) decisions pertains to arrest being made under the preventive law but however, the ratio would apply to the instant case having regard to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra). The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Shri Darshan etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025) at Paragraph No. 20.1.5 held that while Section 50A Cr.P.C. (which is pari materia to Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023) is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore held that mere absence of written grounds do not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. However, the fact remains that prior to the decision rendered in Shri Darshan etc. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and in Vihaan Kumar (supra) has statutorily held that the Arresting Authority should not only furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee but also to the family members of the arrested person and the same is a mandatory requirement under Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS. A similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court in National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate (supra) and the Division Bench held that since the decision rendered in Shri Darshan Page No.# 10/12 etc. (supra) was in a later point of time after the decision is rendered in Pankaj Bansal (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) etc., and therefore having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Shethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 when a situation arises that there are two conflicting decisions, the decision rendered in an earlier point of time has to be followed. [11.] The learned Public Prosecutor has stressed the fact that the applicant understands Mizo language and therefore cannot take the plea that he has not understood what was given to him in writing on his arrest. However, whether the applicant knows Mizo language or not, would be a question of fact which cannot be determined in a bail application and that too without the Case Diary being produced. [12.] The above being the position, I find that the requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS is not met in the process of arrest of the applicant. No materials has been produced before this Court that apart from the arrest intimation given to the applicant, a written arrest intimation was sent to his relative within or outside the state. In fact, in such a situation, if the relatives of the arrested person does not reside within the state or resides in a far flung district within the state, the Arresting Authority could very well send the intimation of arrest in Page No.# 11/12 writing to the relative concerned by post and also send a copy of the same to the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station concerned, where the relative resides for delivery to the relative. If such, procedure was adopted, the case would have been different. As there are no indication that such written communication was made to the relatives in the language understood by them, this Court is of the view that the applicant will have to be released on bail. Accordingly, the applicant be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:- 1) The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with two (2) local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judge Special Court, ND&PS, Aizawl. 2) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Authority Officer as and when required. 3) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; 4) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without giving him prior intimation with details of his place or state of visit. Page No.# 12/12 Violation of any of the above condition shall entail cancellation of the bail. [13.] With the above observations and directions, the Bail Application accordingly stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant