Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030002212026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./30/2026 Sh. Lalpektluanga S/o Bawitinchunga, Leisen, Myanmar, P/A New Ngharchhip, Hnahthial District VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 14.05.2026 The present instant application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed by the accused/petitioner praying for his release on bail pending trial of the Excise Case No. EX-HTL-81/2025 in SC (ND&PS) No. 33/2025 registered under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.H. Ricky Lalruatfela. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State Page No.# 2/7 respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 26.05.2025, in connection with the instant case and he has been in custody since then. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 persons were arrested along with him and 1 of them has already been discharged at the stage of submission of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer of the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed another bail application before the Special Court, ND&PS Act at Lunglei being Bail Application No. 319/2025, which was rejected by an Order dated 25.09.2025, on the grounds that the petitioner is a Myanmar national/refugee and as such, there is every likelihood of him committing the same offence if he is released on bail and there is likelihood of him absconding. It was also rejected on the ground that the case was at the initial stage and the investigation was still ongoing. 4. By filing the instant application, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds of arrest have not been furnished or properly communicated to the petitioner/accused as he is an uneducated person and unless it is translated and communicated to him in the language he understands, the compliance of Section 47 of the BNSS would not be met. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the seizure report dated Page No.# 3/7 26.05.2025 wherein, it is reflected that intimation of arrest was also conveyed to the relative of the accused person at the office, but it is not mentioned as to who was the relative and who had acknowledged the receipt of the information about the arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the Seizing Officer wherein, it can be seen that it was the co-accused, Lalsangliana, who had possession of the contraband substance and not the instant petitioner. In fact, there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was involved in the instant case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further states that now the charge sheet has already been filed and trial has commenced. However, after the promotion of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, no replacement has been sent in his place and due to which the trial is not proceeding regularly and for which reason, there has been delay in the trial also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has now been in custody since 26.05.2025, i.e., 11 months & 18 days till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be allowed to go on bail pending trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana reported in (2025) INSC 162 to show that the ground of arrest have not been provided to the relative or friend of the accused Page No.# 4/7 person and therefore, the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution has not been complied with by the arresting authority. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl by relying upon the records has submitted that 161 statements of the accused person clearly shows that he was involved in the offence and that he is a resident of Myanmar. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the seizure and arrest memo is by itself substantial compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS inasmuch as the ground of arrest has been clearly set out in the seizure and arrest memo whereby, the arresting authority has specifically stated that 178 gms of Heroin powder kept in 15 soap cases has been recovered from the roadside at New Ngharchhip, which was thrown by the accused No. 1, Lalsangliana. The requirements of Section 48 of the BNSS has also been complied with as intimation of arrest has been conveyed to the relative of the accused person at the Police Station itself as shown by the seizure report dated 26.05.2025. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial is proceeding and therefore, the accused may not be released at this stage. 7. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels for parties and also perused the records including the TCR. 8. Upon perusal of the seizure and arrest memo, it is seen that the arresting Page No.# 5/7 authority has written the grounds of arrest in English and there is nothing to show on record that the same has been translated and communicated to the accused/petitioner in the language understood by him. It is settled law that the grounds of arrest have to be explained and communicated to the accused person in a language understood by him so as to comply with the mandate of Section 47 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The seizure report relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor also does not show to whom the information of the arrest was given. The seizure report dated 26.05.2025 merely states that the intimation of arrest was conveyed to the relative of the accused person at the office. It is not specified as to who was the relative of the accused person and the acknowledgement of the relative by putting his/her signature is not seen. Moreover, intimation of arrest is different from grounds of arrest. So, it cannot be said that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the relative or friend of the accused person in compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS. 9. In any view of the matter, the instant case pertains to Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act which is with regard to intermediate quantity of contraband. Accordingly, the stringent condition of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act does not apply in the instant case. The petitioner/accused has already been in custody Page No.# 6/7 since 26.05.2025, and the charge sheet has already been submitted and that the trial has commenced and therefore, this Court does not find any reason why the accused/petitioner should be incarcerated further. 10. In view of the discussion made above and reasons stated, the instant application is allowed. The petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: i) Execution of bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii) The petitioner/accused shall deposit a copy of his ID or any other identification documents before the learned Trial Court along with 2 phone numbers where he can be contacted. iii) The accused/petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without permission of the said Court. iv) The accused/petitioner shall appear on all fixed dates before the Trial Court without fail. 11. With the above observations and directions, bail petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 7/7 JUDGE Comparing Assistant