Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030002202026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./29/2026 Sh. Joseph Lalrindika S/o SanghnunaR/o Tlangsam North,Champhai District. VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 22.05.2026 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent. 2. By way of this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, Shri Joseph Lalrindika, seeks enlargement on bail in connection with SR(EX) No. 278/2025 registered Page No.# 2/5 under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He was arrested on 15.12.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.12.2025, SI B. Lalengmawia received information regarding transportation of illicit contraband from Champhai towards Keitum. Acting upon such information, the official, accompanied by the raiding party and civilian witnesses, proceeded to the location and conducted checking of vehicles for several hours. At about 6:06 PM, a vehicle bearing registration No. MZ-04A-9838, stated to be driven by the petitioner, was intercepted. According to the prosecution, upon being asked to alight from the vehicle, the petitioner allegedly took out several soap cases containing yellowish powder suspected to be heroin from his jacket and trouser pockets. Upon further search of the vehicle, ten additional soap cases containing suspected heroin were allegedly recovered. On such allegation of possession and transportation of 200.16 grams of heroin, the petitioner was arrested. 4. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the arrest itself stands vitiated for non-compliance with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the grounds of arrest were never furnished to the petitioner in writing. It is contended that although a purported “grounds of arrest” document has been placed on record, the same bears no acknowledgment or signature of the petitioner evidencing receipt. It is further submitted that there is no contemporaneous material demonstrating communication of the grounds of arrest either to the petitioner or to any relative. Reliance is placed upon the Page No.# 3/5 decision of the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576; Vihan Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269; Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500; and the decision of this Court in Azibur Rahman @ Aziz @ Azibur v. State of Assam in Bail Application No. 624/2025. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the grounds of arrest were in fact furnished to the petitioner. However, fairly, no contemporaneous material has been shown to substantiate such assertion. It is also submitted that intimation of arrest was given to one Ms. Lalengkimi, stated to be the petitioner’s wife’s elder sister’s daughter. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record, including the scanned copies of the trial court record, this Court finds that the arrest memo itself does not record the grounds of arrest. Though a separate document styled as “grounds of arrest” has been placed on record, a careful scrutiny thereof reveals that the column meant for acknowledgment/signature of the arrested person is conspicuously blank. There is thus no documentary material evidencing that such grounds were actually furnished to the petitioner contemporaneously with his arrest. 7. The fact that intimation of arrest may have been communicated to a relative cannot be conflated with compliance of the constitutional requirement of informing the arrestee himself of the grounds of arrest. The constitutional protection under Article 22(1) is personal to the arrested individual and must be strictly complied with. 8. The issue is no longer res integra. In Pankaj Bansal (supra), the Apex Page No.# 4/5 Court authoritatively held that communication of grounds of arrest in writing is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional imperative flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The principle has since been reiterated and expanded in Vihan Kumar (supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra). In Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), the Apex Court unequivocally held that the constitutional mandate applies across all penal statutes, including special enactments, and that non-compliance renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. 9. Where an arrestee specifically alleges breach of such constitutional safeguard, the burden necessarily shifts upon the investigating agency to demonstrate compliance through contemporaneous material. Mere assertion across the bar cannot substitute proof of compliance with a constitutional mandate. 10. In the present case, despite specific challenge by the petitioner, no contemporaneous record has been produced to establish that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner in writing in the manner mandated by law. The blank acknowledgment in the purported grounds of arrest document materially undermines the prosecution’s stand. 11. Once such constitutional infraction is established, the rigours otherwise applicable to grant of bail under the NDPS Act cannot legitimise continued detention founded upon an illegal arrest and remand. The constitutional guarantee under Articles 21 and 22 must prevail. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner’s continued detention cannot be sustained. Page No.# 5/5 13. The petitioner shall, therefore, be released on bail in connection with SR(EX) No. 278/2025 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Circuit Court, Serchhip, subject to the following conditions: (i) the petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court on each and every date fixed; (ii) 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 dissuade such person from disclosing those facts before the Court or to the investigating agency; (iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Mizoram without prior permission of the learned trial court. 14. 14. It is made clear that any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. The bail application stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant