Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030003712026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./11/2026 Sh. Lhunjangam S/o Thenkholai, R/o M. Maipi, Tengnoupal Sub-Division, Chandel Morch, Manipur VERSUS The State of Mizoram and Anr. Aizawl2:ASI H. Lalpekhlu Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Murmu Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 29.05.2026 Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner through VC and also Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. Having regard to the nature of grievance projected in the instant Criminal Petition, the same is taken up for disposal at this stage. Page No.# 2/4 3. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for quashing the Order dated 22.04.2026 passed by the Learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl in Bail Application No. 244/2026 insofar as it relates to the condition of bail bond and sureties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has given default bail to the applicant but at the same time has imposed an exorbitant surety which the applicant is unable to furnish. He submits that the bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) has been imposed along with two sureties, out of which one is to be a permanent resident of Aizawl city living in his/her own house and the other surety shall be one of the family members of the accused. The sureties are also to show financial soundness. The learned counsel submits that the allegation against the applicant is possession of an intermediate quantity of suspected Heroin. He submits that in view of the exorbitant and strict conditions of bail, the same amounts to denial of bail to the applicant. 5. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Saravanan Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in (2020) 9 SCC 101 & Moti Ram Vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47. Page No.# 3/4 6. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submits that since the applicant has been booked under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act and is, at the same time, a resident of another State, the imposition of such conditions of bail is necessary. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties. 8. The applicant has also annexed a copy of the Order dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 20/2026 wherein the amount of recovery of suspected Heroin was said to be of commercial quantity and that bail was granted by this Court upon the applicant furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) with two local sureties of the like amount to the Learned Special Judge, ND&PS, Aizawl. As already stated, in the present case, the amount is an intermediate quantity and having regard to the difficulty expressed by the applicant to furnish the impugned amount, this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be served if the condition of bail are modified in the following manner: i) 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. Page No.# 4/4 ii) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Authority Officer as and when required. iii) 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. iv) 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. 9. Violation of any of the above conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail. 10. With the above observations and directions, the Criminal Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant