Bail Appln./66/2026 of Sh. Hussain Ahmed Vs The State of Mizoram on 24 August 2026

ORDER

25.08.2026 Heard Mr. Manojit Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlargement of the applicants on bail in connection with Special Narcotics P.S Case No. 19/2026 under Section 22(c)/29(1) of ND&PS

Act, 1985.

3. The allegations as per the FIR is that on 30.06.2026 at around 11:00 p.m., three persons, including the present petitioner, were intercepted at Zero Point, Sairang, and upon their disclosure, the police recovered suspected methamphetamine tablets from the roadside at Sihhmui Road, Sairang, the total weight of which was 1.938 kgs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, firstly, the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS was served upon the petitioner in the Mizo language, which he does not understand, being a person from Assam, whose mother tongue is Bengali. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that since the petitioner was found with two other arrested persons, both of whom are Mizo and were arrested within Mizoram, it can be presumed that the petitioner understands the Mizo language.

5. The second point raised by the learned counsel is that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS is also in the Mizo language, which is addressed to the wife of the petitioner, namely, Hasina Begum, who is a resident of Assam and has no knowledge of the Mizo language. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the signature of the said Hasina Begum is not available in the aforesaid notice under Section 48 of the BNSS. Rather, the signature of some other person has been put in the space meant for the signature of the recipient, i.e., the wife of the petitioner, whose name is mentioned under the said signature.

6. On perusal of the aforesaid arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS, it is evident that the same is in the Mizo language and the wife of the petitioner, being a resident of Assam, whose mother tongue is Bengali, cannot be expected to understand the Mizo language. Furthermore, it is also noticed, as submitted by the learned counsel, that no signature of the said wife of the petitioner, i.e., Hasina Begum, is available therein. Instead, the signature of another person appears to have been put in the designated space in the said notice.

7. Having regard to the same, I am of the view that there has been non- compliance with the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2025) 5 SCC 799 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC, 269.

8. Having regard to the same, the prayer for bail is allowed on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with two sureties each of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl, with the following conditions:-

(i) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer;

(ii) That the petitioner shall not leave the State of Mizoram without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court;

(iii) That the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation;

(iv) That the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected; and

(v) That the petitioner shall furnish his current address and mobile phone number to the Investigating Officer and shall keep the same operational during the pendency of the case.

9. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant