Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030000482026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2/2026 Sh. Lalfakzuala S/o Vanlaltlana, Vengthar, Kolasib VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalthangmawia Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 26.02.2026 Heard Mr. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Marry L. Khiangte, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondent. 2. Invoking the provisions of Section 483 of BNSS, the petitioner herein is seeking bail in connection with Vairengte P.S. Case No. 44 of 2024 under Page No.# 2/5 Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 3. The gist of the allegations in the FIR dated 27.09.2024 is about recovery of 35 cases of suspected psychotropic substances in the nature of methamphetamine from two vehicles (auto rickshaw) in which, the petitioner and other co-accused were found. 4. The case was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet were framed vide C.S.10/2025. under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. Subsequently, upon framing of charges, the case is at the stage of trial in Criminal trial No. 10 of 2025 pending before the learned Special Judge, Kolasib, District, Mizoram. The present petitioner was arrested on 27.09.2024 itself and since then, he is in under trial detention and presently, in judicial custody. The scanned case record was called for and received. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner denies his involvement in the alleged offences. One of the main contentions of the petitioner is that no grounds of arrest were furnished to him, at the time of arrest, thereby violating the constitutional provisions under Article 22 and 21. It is also submitted that there is no videography of the seizure and procedural infirmity as well in the arrest in as much as, the S/I of police, who was authorized regarding the operation did not commit the arrest and that it was done by another police official. It is also submitted that the grounds of belief under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act was not received by the O.C of the concerned police station. 6. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following decisions:- (i)Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Another (2025) SCC Page No.# 3/5 OnLine SC 2356, (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) 2024 INSC 414. 7. The learned Addl. P.P. fairly submits that upon perusing the case record, she has not noticed any written grounds of arrest, furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, but it is submitted that there are materials to indicate that the grounds of arrest were orally conveyed by the police personnel. 8. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the submissions of the learned counsels addressed at the Bar on both the sides. 9. The quantity of the contraband in question being in the bracket of commercial quantity, the applicability of Section 37 NDPS also has to be seen. 10. Admittedly, the written grounds of arrest were not furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also as fairly submitted by the learned Addl. P.P. 11. Before proceeding further, paragraph-56 of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) may be reproduced herein:- “56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. Page No.# 4/5 iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 12. Thus, it is clear from the reiteration in the aforesaid decision of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) that - the grounds of arrest have to be communicated; done so in writing and done so in a language that the arrestee understands. It further follows that any non-compliance would render the arrest fatally infirm and the person would be liable to be enlarged on bail as his continued detention would be untenable. 13. The aforesaid principles also follow from Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799. It has been also held in Vihaan Kumar (supra) that - if an accused is found entitled to be granted bail on these grounds, statutory restrictions on the grant of bail, such as Section-37 of the NDPS Act, would not also come in the way. 14. In the instant case, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion and finding that the petitioner has become entitled to be granted bail, due to infirmity in the grounds of arrest and violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 22 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, the applicability of the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act need not be adjudicated. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above, I allow this bail petition and the petitioner is allowed to go on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court, (Special Judge Kolasib) and subject to the following conditions that:- (i) he shall not abscond, Page No.# 5/5 (ii) he shall cooperate with the remaining trial, (iii) he shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence, (iv) he shall not commit any illegal activities, including any offences under the NDPS Act. 16. Violation of the bail conditions, will entail cancellation of the bail. 17. Accordingly, the bail petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant