Bail Appln./85/2026 of Sh. T. Paulamthanga Vs The State of Mizoram on 6 September 2026

ORDER

07.09.2026 Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of bail to the applicant, namely, Shri. T. Paulamthanga, who was arrested on 22.07.2026 in connection with SC (ND&PS) Case No. 17/2025 arising out of Lunglei P.S. Case No. 69/2026 under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

3. The instant case emanates from the seizure of 14 soap cases containing suspected

177.98 grams of Heroin No. 4 on 11.07.2026, effected by the Lunglei Police from the possession of co-accused, namely, Laldingpuii. The brief facts of the case are that said co- accused was arrested on 10.07.2026 upon an FIR being lodged by the ASI, Lunglei PS in connection with the aforesaid seizure of contraband. During the course of interrogation of the said co-accused, the investigating officer traced certain transactions of money through Google Pay (Gpay) between the applicant and the said co-accused, based on which the present applicant was arrested later on.

4. Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a pastor serving at the Mercy Assembly of God Church, Champhai and was arrested only because he had permitted another person to use his Gpay account. She further submits that the applicant has been unnecessarily dragged into the present investigation merely because there were Gpay transactions from his account to the account of the main accused. She further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and therefore, entitled for bail.

5. Per contra, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned APP submits that upon incriminating materials having been emerged during the course of investigation implicating the present applicant, the present applicant has been arrested. Upon a pointed query being put to her as regards the status of investigation, she, on instruction, submits that the investigation has already been completed and that the charge-sheet is likely to be submitted during the course of the day.

6. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record, including the scanned copy of the case diary.

7. It appears that after the main accused was arrested and investigation having been commenced, on the basis of the CDR and bank statement/Gpay transactions having been checked and analyzed, the present applicant has been suspected to have received amounts transferred by the main accused from the illicit proceeds related to payment/purchase of the contraband seized.

8. It appears that the statements of the applicant as well as the main accused and other witnesses have already been recorded. It further appears that there is no criminal antecedent, whatsoever, available in the case diary against the present applicant. It further appears that the investigation has concluded and the charge-sheet is likely to be submitted during the course of the day in view of the information received by the learned APP during the course of hearing.

9. Undoubtedly, the offence is grave. However, the bail cannot be rejected solely on the basis of the gravity of the offence and the other parameters, i.e., criminal antecedents and the likelihood of the applicant jumping the bail are also to be taken note of while considering the prayer for bail.

10. In the present case, the investigation appears to have been completed. It further appears that there is no criminal antecedent available against the present applicant. There is also nothing on record to indicate that the applicant, if released on bail, would jump the bail and not participate in the trial.

11. Bail is the Rule, jail is the exception. The object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during the trial.

12. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, vis-à-vis, Article 21 of the Constitution, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial detention of the applicant is not justified at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the applicant, named above, be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid case, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with two securities of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Mizoram, subject of course to the following conditions: (I) The applicant shall regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date fixed by it.

(ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, promise or attempt to influence any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing relevant facts before the Court or to the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior leave of the Court concerned and shall, in the event of travel, furnish details of his place of stay and contact particulars.

(iv) The applicant shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature during the period of release.

14. It is clarified that any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail, in accordance with law.

15. It is further clarified that observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present bail application and nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the prosecution case, which shall be considered independently by the competent Court at the appropriate stage.

16. The instant bail application, accordingly stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant