Page No.# 1/15 GAHC030003872026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./15/2026 Sh. Malsawma @ Malsawma Loncheu and Anr. S/o Lalzothawna(L) @ Zotawna, Present residence of Thenzawl, Hermon, Serchhip District, Mizoram. P/A Tlangnuam, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: Sh. Rualliansanga @ Sanga. S/o Thawmliana(L) Present residence of Bungtlang Lawngtlai Mizoram P/A Dinthar Aizawl Mizora VERSUS National Investigation Agency Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Advocate for the appellants : Mr. M.S. Hmingthanmawia Advocate for the respondent : Mr. C. Zoramchhana, Special P.P., NIA Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 2/15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) (R. Phukan, J) Heard Mr. M.S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent -NIA. 2. This appeal, under Section 528, read with Section 484(2) of the BNSS, 2023, read with Section 21 of the NIA Act, is preferred by the appellants for reduction/modification of the bail bond, to be executed by them, pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, NIA, Aizawl, Mizoram, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 449/2025, arising out of Bail Application No. 459/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 01.12.2025, the learned Judge, Special Court, NIA, Aizawl, Mizoram ('trial Court', for short) has modified the bail order dated 09.09.2025, as under: "Accused Malsawma Loncheu and Rualliansanga alias Sanga Shall be released be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 10 lakhs each with two reliable sureties of like amount. One surety must be a regular government servant duly certified by the controlling officer and the other must be a member of Local Council/Village Council where the accused is/are permanent resident.” Page No.# 3/15 3.1. It is also to be noted here that vide order, dated 09.09.2025, the learned trial Court has directed that accused Malsawma @ Malsawma Loncheu and Rualliansanga @ Sanga be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,00,000/-, each, with two reliable sureties, each of the like amount. One surety must be a native and Gazetted Officer of Mizoram. Second surety must be relative of the accused who have resided with him/them at least for the past 20 years and having land settlement/patta/pass issued by competent authority in his/her favour. And the learned trial Court has also imposed the following conditions: (i) They shall attend court regularly. (ii) They shall not, directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise with the persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or tamper with evidence. (iii) They shall not leave Mizoram without the previous permission of the Court. (iv) They shall not commit an offence similar to the offence which they are accused or are suspected of commission of which they suspected. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under: "On 15.01.2025, Mizoram Police had intercepted two vehicles and arrested 5 suspected individuals, including the present appellants, which led to recovery of 6 A.K. 47 Rifles, 13 numbers of empty Magazine and 10050 rounds of Ammunition, from outskirt of Saithah Village of Mamit District, which were suspected to be smuggled from a foreign country with Page No.# 4/15 the intention of further supplying the same to terrorist organization/gang. Said two vehicles were seized by police FIR No. 2 of 2025 dated 15.01.20225 was registered at West Phaileng Police Station, under U/s 61(2)(a) of BNS and 13,16,18,20,23 of UA(P) Act and Section25(1AA) of the Arms Act and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, based on a written complaints/information by Shri. Laichhuanawma Sub Inspector of Police/CID SB, Aizawl to investigate the case. The said FIR was filed before the Ld. Special Court, Aizawl on 19.03.2025, and accordingly, investigation was taken by National Investigation Agency, BO, Guwahati. During the course of investigation, the appellants herein, along with three other co-accused, namely, Lalbiakchunga @ David (A-1), Lalthawmchheu @ Thawma (A-2) and Alok Bikash Chakma (A-5) were arrested by Mizoram Police on January 15.01.2025 in connection with the instant case. The appellants had filed bail application, being B.Α No.459/2025, before the learned Special Court NIA, Aizawl. Then hearing both the parties, the learned Special Court, NΝΙΑ had granted bail to them, vide memo No. J(NIA)/ΒΑ.459/25/68, dated 09th September, 2025 by imposing conditions which could not be met by the appellants herein. The appellants then filed one Criminal Misc. Application No. 449/2025, for reduction of the bail conditions. Thereafter the learned Special Court, NIA had passed the modification order, Vide Memo No. J(NIA)Crl. Misc.449/25/481, dated 1st December, 2025. But, even after modification also the appellants could not be filed the bail bond because of failing find the sureties and satisfying the conditions so imposed. And because of this failure, the appellants have been languishing in judicial custody till date. Page No.# 5/15 Being aggrieved the appellants preferred the present appeal with the prayer as aforesaid." Submissions:- 5. Mr. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the accused are poor person and they are not in a position to furnish surety bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- each and he further submits that in their family, there is no Government servant and as such, they could not furnish the bail bond, and languishing in jail hazot, though they were granted bail by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 09.09.2025, and modified vide order dated 01.12.2025. He also submits that the onerous condition, so imposed by the learned trial Court compelled the appellants herein to remain in jail and the same violates their right to personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission, he has referred to two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) Moti Ram v. State of M.P., reported in (1978) 4 SCC 47, and (ii) Guddan @ Roop Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan, in Criminal Appeal No. 120 of 2023 [arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9756/2022]. 6. Per contra, Mr. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-NIA has vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits that the earlier conditions had already been modified by the learned trial court vide order dated 01.12.2025 and the same cannot be relaxed further. Referring to the points raised in his objection petition, he further submits that the allegation against the appellants are serious in nature, where the maximum punishment prescribed is life imprisonment with fine and the minimum punishment prescribed is ten years imprisonment, and given the seriousness of the allegation against the Page No.# 6/15 appellants, the conditions, so imposed by the learned trial Court, seems to be appropriate. He also submits that the appellants have no permanent address and if the conditions imposed by the learned trial Court is relaxed, then it would be difficult to procure their attendance and there is every likelihood of indulging in similar activities, in which they have been charged, and also there is chances of absconding. Under such circumstances, the he has contended to dismiss the appeal. Consideration and Analysis:- 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, we have carefully gone through the memo of appeal and the grounds mentioned therein, and also carefully gone through the documents placed on record, including the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The appellants herein were apprehended on 15.01.2025, by Mizoram Police while they were travelling in two vehicles, with three other suspects, and their interception led to recovery of 6 numbers of AK-47 rifles and 13 numbers of empty magazines and 10050 rounds of ammunitions from the outskirt of Saithah Village of Mamit district, Mizoram and the said ammunitions were suspected to be smuggled from a foreign country with the intention of further supplying those arms and ammunitions to terrorist organizations. In respect of the said recovery, West Phaileng No. 02/2025, dated 15.01.2025, under Section 61(2)(a) of BNS, read with Sections 13/16/18/20/23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, read with Section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act and Section 14(A) of Foreigners Act, was registered and subsequently, the case was transferred to National Investigation Agency (NIA) for investigation. Page No.# 7/15 8.1. Pending investigation of the case, the appellants herein had preferred one bail application before the learned trial Court. Then vide order dated 09.09.2025, the learned trial Court had granted them bail by imposing the conditions as discussed herein above. But, the appellants herein could not furnish the bail bond because of the onerous conditions, so imposed by the learned trial Court. Subsequently, they had preferred on Criminal Misc. Application No. 449/2025, arising out of Bail Application No. 459/2025. Then, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2025, the learned trial Court had modified the same as indicated herein above. The Legal Position:- 9. The issue of imposing condition in granting bail to the accused is dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions. Moti Ram (supra) is a notable decision amongst them. This case is a foundational one on socio- economic barriers to bail. The petitioner in that case was a poor mason, and he was granted bail by the Supreme Court, but he could not comply with the Magistrate's demand for a high surety (Rs. 10,000) and local surety requirements. Then Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue in following para:- "30. If sureties are obligatory even for Juveniles, females and sickly accused while they can be dispensed with, after being found guilty, if during trial when the presence to instruct lawyers is more necessary, an accused must buy release only with sureties while at the appellate level, suretyship is expendable, there is unreasonable restriction on personal liberty with discrimination writ on the provisions. The hornet's nest of Part III need not be provoked if we read 'bail' to mean that it popularly does, and lexically and in American Jurisprudence is stated to Page No.# 8/15 mean viz. a generic expression used to describe judicial release from custodia juris. Bearing in mind the need for liberal interpretation in areas of social justice, individual freedom and indigents's rights, we hold that bail covers both release on one's own bond, with or without sureties. When sureties should be demanded and what sum should be insisted on are dependent on variables. 31. Even so, poor men terms, indigents Indians are, in monetary young persons, infirm individuals and women are weak categories and courts should be liberal in releasing them on their own recognisances conditions you may. put whatever reasonable 32. It shocks one's conscience to ask a mason like the petitioner to furnish sureties for Rs 10,000. The Magistrate must be given the benefit of doubt for not fully appreciating that our Constitution, enacted by 'We, the People of India', is meant for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker shall we add, the bonded labour and pavement dweller.” 9.1. Again in another notable decision, i.e. Sandeep Jain Vs. National Capital Territory of Delhi, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 66, Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as under:- "We are unable to appreciate even the first order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate imposing the onerous condition that an accused at the FIR stage should pay a huge sum of Rs 2 lakhs to be set at liberty. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the Page No.# 9/15 range of Rs 2 lakhs? If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to the legal remedies provided by law. Similarly if the Court was dissatisfied with the conduct of the surety as for his failure to raise funds for honouring the cheques issued by him, the Court could have directed the appellant to substitute him with another surety. But to keep him in prison for such a long period, that too in a case where bail would normally be granted for the offences alleged, is not only hard but improper. It must be remembered that the Court has not even come to the conclusion that the allegations made in the FIR are true. That can be decided only when the trial concludes, if the case is charge-sheeted by the police." 9.2. This issue again came up before Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Frank Vitus vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 415, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the proposition as under:- "9. A broader meaning cannot be assigned to the words "interest of justice" 437(3) CrPC. By borrowing the language used by in Section this Court in the above decisions, we can say that the bail conditions cannot be fanciful, arbitrary or freakish. The object of imposing conditions of bail is to ensure that the accused does not interfere or obstruct the investigation in for the any manner, remains available investigation, does not tamper with or destroy evidence, does not commit any offence, remains regularly present before the trial court, and does not create obstacles in the expeditious conclusion of the trial. The courts have imposed a condition that the accused should cooperate with the investigation when bail is granted before filing the final report or charge-sheet. Cooperating with the investigation does not mean that the accused must confess. The conditions Page No.# 10/15 incorporated in the order granting bail must be within the four corners of Section 437(3). The bail conditions must be consistent with the object of imposing conditions. While imposing bail conditions, the constitutional rights of an accused, who is ordered to be released on bail, can be curtailed only to the minimum extent required. Even an accused convicted cted by a competent court and undergoing a sentence in prison is not deprived of all his rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. This Court, in State Ramkrishna Reddy [State of of A.P. v. Challa A.P. v. Challa Ramkrishna Reddy, (2000) 5 SCC 712], reiterated the settled position by holding as follows: "22. Right to life is one of the basic human rights. It is guaranteed to every person by Article 21 of the Constitution and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. A prisoner, be he a convict or undertrial or a detenu, does not cease to be a human being. Even when Lodged in the jail, he continues to enjoy all his fundamental rights including the right to Life guaranteed to him under the Constitution. On being convicted of crime and deprived of their Liberty in accordance with the procedure established by Law, prisoners still retain the residue of constitutional rights." (emphasis supplied) 10.1. We are dealing with a case of the accused whose guilt is yet to be established. So long as he is not held guilty, the presumption of innocence is applicable. He cannot be deprived of all his rights guaranteed under Article 21. The courts must show restraint while imposing bail conditions. Therefore, while granting bail, the courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for imposing the bail conditions warranted by law. Bail conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate the order of Page No.# 11/15 bail itself. For example, the court may impose a condition of periodically reporting to the police station/court or not travelling abroad without prior permission. Where circumstances require, the court may impose a condition restraining an accused from entering a particular area to protect the prosecution witnesses or the victims. But the court cannot impose a condition on the accused to keep the police constantly informed about his movement from one place to another. The object of the bail condition cannot be to keep a constant vigil on the movements of the accused enlarged on bail. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to continuously peep into the private life of the accused enlarged on bail, by imposing arbitrary conditions since that will violate the right of privacy of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 21. If a constant vigil is kept on every movement of the accused released on bail by the use of technology or otherwise, it will infringe the rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 21, including the right to privacy. The reason is that the effect of keeping such constant vigil on the accused by imposing drastic bail conditions will amount to keeping the accused in some kind of confinement even after he is released on bail. Such a condition cannot be a condition of bail. 11. In view of sub-section (2) of Section 441 CrPC, the conditions imposed by the court while granting bail always stand incorporated in the bail bond executed by the accused. Therefore, the accused is bound by the conditions imposed while granting bail. If the accused, after being enlarged on bail, commits a breach of bail conditions or commits any offence, the courts always have the power to cancel the bail. 12. A condition cannot be imposed while granting bail which is impossible for the accused to comply with. If such a condition is imposed, it will deprive an accused of bail, Page No.# 12/15 though he is otherwise entitled to it." 9.3. Again, in the case of Sachin Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.2168-2169/2026 [Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 3961-3962 OF 2026], Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: "15. Grant of conditions, bail to an accused, with is a discretionary relief. The impugned condition, which the High Court imposed in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, seems to be preventive in nature which came to be imposed considering the situational aspect of multiple FIRs and cross FIR having been registered against the appellant as well as the members of the complainant's family, respectively, arising out of long-standing 5 property disputes. It is not uncommon that courts do impose conditions which impinge on the fundamental rights of the accused (of right of locomotion within the country, right of residence, right to travel abroad, etc.). 16. However, it needs no emphasis that only in exceptional cases should such a condition be imposed. It is trite that a condition like the one under challenge takes in its train serious curtailment of rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and must, therefore, satisfy the tests of reasonableness, proportionality and necessity. The objects for imposing conditions to enjoy the concession of bail need no elucidation........” 9.4. Again, in the case of Guddan @ Roop Narayan (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue, has held as under:- "13. In the present case, the Appellant has been granted bail by the High Court. However, while granting bail, the High Court has imposed the excessive conditions of a deposit of fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with a surety of another Rs.1,00,000/- and two further bail bonds of Rs.50,000/- each. Page No.# 13/15 14. We are unable to appreciate the excessive conditions of bail imposed by the High Court. The fact that bail has been granted to the Appellant herein is proof enough to show that he is not to be languishing in jail during the pendency of the case. 15. While bail has been granted to the Appellant, the excessive conditions imposed have, in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the grant of bail. If the Appellant had paid the required amount, it would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the Appellant was not able to pay the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the amount." 10. The legal proposition, which can be crystallized from the aforesaid decisions, is that- grant of bail to an accused, with conditions, is a discretionary relief. The Courts have to balance the liberty of the accused with trial interests. But, conditions cannot be excessively burdensome or unattainable, especially for those from weaker economic backgrounds. Further, the conditions must pass the tests of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality. They cannot curtail fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, more than required. Impossible or overly onerous conditions e.g., unaffordable sureties, impractical requirements, effectively amount to denial of bail. Bail, amongst others, also includes release on one's own bond without sureties in appropriate cases. While deciding surety amounts, the courts have to consider the financial capacity of the accused. Excessive demands price out the poor and violate equality and liberty. Bail procedures must align with social justice and not discriminate against the indigent. This directly addresses situations where harsh financial or surety conditions lead to continued detention. Disproportionate conditions has to be set aside as "harsh, unreasonable." Page No.# 14/15 11. Applying the aforesaid proposition to the given factual scenario of the case in hand, we find that not only the conditions imposed by the order dated 09.09.2025, are harsh and onerous, but also, the conditions, modified subsequently, vide impugned order dated 01.12.2025; also appear to be equally onerous and harsh. Since the conditions are impossible for the appellants to comply with, the same deprived the appellants of bail. 12. Indisputably, the appellants were arrested on 15.01.2025, and since then, they are languishing in jail hazot for more than one and half years. Even after subsequent modification of the bail conditions, vide order dated 01.12.2025, also the appellants could not furnish the bail bond because of their poor economic condition and also because of absence of Government servant in their respective families, to stand as their surety. The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly pointed this out during his argument. According to him, the appellants will be able to furnish surety bond of Rs. 50,000/- only and instead of Government servant, any person having LSC at Aizawl, Mizoram may be allowed to stand as surety for them. 13. Though Mr. Zoramchhana, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-NIA, has raised serious objection in modifying the conditions, yet we are unable to record concurrence with the same. While balancing the personal liberty of the appellants with that of the interest of the society as well as the trial interest, we find that the balance tilted in favour of the personal liberty of the appellants. The conditions fail to satisfy the test of reasonableness and proportionality. And the same amounts to curtailment of right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to the appellants. 14. Accordingly, keeping in mind the illuminating discourse, in the cases discussed herein above, we are of the view that a balance could be maintained Page No.# 15/15 if the bail condition so imposed by the learned each Special Court is modified to the extent of allowing them to furnish a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, both having LSC at Aizawl of Mizoram. 15. In the result we find sufficient merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands allowed. The bail conditions stand modified to the extent as indicated above. J U D G E J U D G E Comparing Assistant