Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./77/2026 of Sh. Laltleipuia Vs The State of Mizoram on 24 August 2026
GAHC030006042026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030006042026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./77/2026
Sh. Laltleipuia
S/o Sihama(L) R/o Aizawl Venglai,Aizawl,Mizoram,Pin Code-796001
VERSUS
The State of Mizoram
Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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
25.08.2026
Heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for enlargement of the petitioner on bail in connection with Excise Case No. Ex-N-136 of 2020 under Section 21 (b) of ND&PS Act, 1985.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 19.11.2020 for alleged possession of 82 grams of heroin and was subsequently released on bail subject to a condition that he shall not commit any offence of a similar nature while on bail. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in another case being ND&PS Case No. 238 of 2025 arising out of Special Narcotics Case No. 19 of 2025 under Section 22(c) and 25 of the ND&PS Act. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted bail in the aforesaid subsequent case vide Order dated 07.04.2026. However, as a consequence of the re-arrest, the bail granted in the earlier case was cancelled because of which the petitioner could not be released. It is submitted that the trial of the case out of which the bail application has arisen has concluded and is pending for submission of written arguments.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of his release on bail in the subsequent case and having regard to the stage of the trial and the period of detention, the prayer for bail may be allowed.
5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and in view of the same, the prayer for bail may be rejected.
6. The petitioner was granted bail in the present case as aforesaid and the bail bonds stood cancelled in view of his arrest in a subsequent case. Since the petitioner has been granted bail in the subsequent case which was for a more serious offence involving commercial quantity, it is submitted that the petitioner may be released on bail in the present case as it involves intermediate quantity.
7. In the considered view of this Court, the petitioner was granted bail in the instant case by imposing certain conditions, one which he had violated by allegedly involving himself in similar offence as a result of which, the bail bonds stood cancelled. The mere fact that the petitioner was granted bail in the subsequent case, and that too on technical grounds i.e., non-compliance with Section 47/48 of BNSS, does not detract from the fact that the petitioner had violated the bail conditions, because of which his bail was deservedly cancelled.
8. In view of the above and also the fact that the trial has been concluded and is now only pending for arguments, I do not deem it fit to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.
9. Consequently, the prayer for bail is rejected.
10. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant