Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./89/2026 of Sh. Seiminlien Kholhou Vs The State of Mizoram on 27 September 2026
GAHC030006742026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030006742026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./89/2026
Sh. Seiminlien Kholhou
S/o Khaihou Kholhou, R/o Muolnuom, Mahur, North Cachar Hills, Assam-788830
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram
Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Rashmi Borgohain Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram
B E F O R E
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
28.09.2026 Heard Ms. Anshuman Bhardwaz , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for the grant of regular bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Seiminlien Kholhou, in connection with Saitual P.S. Case No. 42/2026 under Sections 22(c)/25 of the ND&PS Act, 1985.
3. The allegation against the petitioner, as reflected in the FIR, is that on 12.08.2026, while conducting a search of the petitioner, the police recovered one soap case containing suspected heroin from his possession. The weight of the suspected heroin was stated to be 12 grams in the FIR. Subsequently, as per the inventory, the weight was found to be 10.52 grams (net weight).
4. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner was apprehended on 05.05.2026, while transporting contraband drugs in a Bolero vehicle and upon search, 90,900 suspected methamphetamine tablets concealed inside the vehicle were recovered, and the total weight of the same was found to be 10.118 kg.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, served upon the petitioner, to contend that the said notice is not in accordance with law, as it is revealed from a bare perusal of the said notice that no grounds of arrest are mentioned therein. It is pointed out that the notice purportedly issued under Section 47 of the BNSS contains the heading “Detailed Ground for such Arrest”, wherein a single sentence was written in the Thadu Kuki language, the English translation whereof reads as follows: “Police have arrested me because I am transporting/carrying illegal drugs and I confess this.”
6. It is further submitted that this is a strange case where the petitioner himself wrote the purported grounds/reason for his arrest, while the arresting authority conveyed nothing to him, other than mentioning the case number and the provisions of law invoked.
7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid purported notice under Section 47 of the BNSS lends credence to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor could not point out anything from the record which would show that the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing to the petitioner. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 16.07.2026 in Bail Appln. No. 59/2026, which also relates to a case where a similar notice under Section 47 of the BNSS was served upon the accused, has observed that such act of the arresting authority is “bizarre”.
9. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bail Appln. No. 62/2026, by order dated 05.08.2026, following the earlier referred decision and on similar facts, held that the detention of the petitioner therein was illegal, in view of the violations of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS.
10. In the present case also, it is noticed that even the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS was not served upon the relatives/friends/nominated persons of the petitioner, which is an admitted fact. What is stated in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS is that since the family members of the petitioner are residing outside the State, “the information of his arrest” has been conveyed to the wife of the petitioner on her mobile phone number. This itself shows that what has been conveyed was merely the information regarding his arrest and not the grounds of arrest. Therefore, the provision of Section 48 of the BNSS as explained in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, also stands violated.
11. In view of the above, the arrest has been rendered illegal and, therefore, Section 37 of the ND&PS Act does not operate as a bar to the grant of bail to the petitioner.
12. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only, with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl.
13. The petitioner shall cooperate with the trial, if and when the same commences.
14. The petition stands disposed of as allowed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant