Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030001742026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./19/2026 Sh. Lalramtiam S/o Saliankhuai R/o Tahan F Group Myanmar 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 MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 27.04.2026. 1) Heard Ms. Rebecca Lalzawmpuii, learned counsel appearing on for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2) This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/7 Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Lalramtiam, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.06.2025, in connection with Criminal Trial No. 24/2025, arising out of Excise Case bearing No. Ex-VRT 1263/2025, under Section 21(c)/2025 of the NDPS Act, 1985, presently pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kolasib. 3) The gist of the accusation, in this case, in brief are that on 19.06.2025, at around noon, the Officer-in-Charge, Excise & Narcotics Station at Vairengte received an information regarding carrying of suspected heroin in a Maruti Super Carry bearing Registration No. MZ01AE/0368 which was parked at the roadside near Phainuam Field No. 1, from where two accused persons including the present petitioner were arrested. During search of the said vehicle, the seizing officer recovered 220 numbers of soap cases which were kept inside Mamee instant-noodle packets. The total weight of the seized contraband, which was suspected to be heroin, was found to be 2.502kgs. 4) The petitioner and the co-accused were arrested from the spot on the said day, i.e., 19.06.2025. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the accused persons including the present petitioner under Section 21 (c)/ 25 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. The charges were also framed against the present petitioner under aforementioned provision of law and trial Page No.# 3/7 is going on. 5) The petitioner also approached the Trial Court, i.e., the Court of learned Judge, Fast Track Court, Kolasib, seeking bail in connection with the aforesaid case, however, by Order dated 05.12.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 58/2025, the prayer was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the embargo of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is applicable to this case. 6) Ms. Rebecca Lalzawmpuii, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail mainly on the ground of violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Section 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She submits that no notice under Section 48 of BNSS was served neither any grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to them. She further submits that in the notice which was served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, the grounds of arrest were not properly mentioned as well as same was communicated in English language, i.e., language to which the petitioner is not familiar. 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the constitutional mandate for the arresting authority to inform the arrestee about the grounds of arrest in writing in the language which he understands. She Page No.# 4/7 further submits that the grounds of arrest are also to be communicated in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated person of the arrestee, however, the same was not done and as such, she submits that there is violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and on that ground itself, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited rulings Of the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2025 INSC 1288. 8) On the other hand, Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the quantum of contraband seized in this case is of commercial quantity and hence, the embargo of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is applicable to this case. Though she fairly submits that no separate notice under Section 48 of the BNSS was served on the relatives/friends/nominated person of the petitioner, however, she submits that in the seizure, arrest memo which was prepared at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, it is categorically mentioned therein that the intimation of arrest was given to the family members of the arrestee on phone and therefore, she submits that substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 48 of BNSS as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 5/7 9) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 10) It appears that though the embargo of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act is apparently applicable in this case as the quantum of the seized contraband is of commercial quantity, however, if there is an infringement of any fundamental rights of the petitioner at the time of his arrest, it would override the embargo of the Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. 11) In the instant case, admittedly, no separate notice under Section 48 of the BNSS was served on the relatives/friends/nominated person of the accused at the time of arrest of the present petitioner. 12) The Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 5 SCC 799 has held that the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest, in writing, to the relatives/friends/nominated person of the arrestee is a mandatory constitutional requirement and any violation of the said requirement would amount to infringement of the fundamental rights of the arrestee guaranteed to him or her under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and in case of any such infringement, the fundamental rights of the arrestee shall out weight the embargo of the Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. Page No.# 6/7 13) As a result, the arrest made in contravention of the said mandatory requirement would itself vitiate and same is sufficient to grant bail to such an arrestee. 14) In the instant case, admittedly, the grounds of arrest were not communicated in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated person of the accused (present petitioner) at the time of his arrest. His fundamental rights guaranteed under Section 22(1) as well as Section 21 of the Constitution of India have been infringed on that account only the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. 15) Accordingly, the abovenamed petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Kolasib. ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; Page No.# 7/7 iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 16) With the above observation, this Bail Application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant