Bail Appln./53/2026 of Sh. Lalhriathlua Vs The State of Mizoram on 2 July 2026

ORDER

Date : 03-07-2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalhruaitluanga, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, praying for the privilege of bail to be granted to the petitioner in connection with Champhai P.S. Case No. 32/2026 under Section 22(c)/21(b)/29 of the ND&PS Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been placed under arrest on 01.03.2026 at 11 pm in connection with FIR No. 32/2026. The petitioner was thereafter produced before the learned Remand Magistrate, who had further remanded him to custody. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grounds of arrest as required under the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS had not been intimated to his family prior or immediately after the production before the Remand Magistrate.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the copy of the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS as available on record would show that the same does not contain the details of the person who was allegedly informed over mobile and no mobile number is shown on the notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since no notice acceptable in law under Section 48 of the BNSS had been served upon the family of the petitioner, the detention of the petitioner out of the same arrest has now turned out to be illegal and therefore, the detention is required to be interfered with and the petitioner to be set at liberty.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 to support his submission.

6. Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Mizoram has submitted that she is under instructions that the family of the petitioner had been informed about the grounds of his arrest over telephone. However, on a pointed query, it was submitted that the particular mobile phone number over which the information had been allegedly given to the family of the petitioner is not available on record.

7. In view of the settled position of law that in the absence of proper intimation of arrest being given to the family, relative or friends of the accused/arrested person, prior to his being produced before the learned Remand Magistrate or at least within a reasonable period of time thereafter, the detention of the arrested person could be deemed to be illegal, I am of the considered view that the detention of the petitioner in the present case is not sustainable in law in the given facts and circumstances. However, since the allegations against the petitioner are of serious nature, I deem it fit to direct the petitioner to be released on bail, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of the like amount, one of whom shall be a permanent resident of the locality of the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Champhai Judicial District, Mizoram. Further, the following conditions are imposed:-

(i) They shall not abscond;

(ii) They shall not misuse their liberty to indulge in any illegal activities, including any activities of penddling narcotic drugs;

(iii) They shall not hamper or tamper with evidence in any manner; and

(iv) They shall not intimidate or try to influence any witnesses.

8. In case of violation of any or more of the bail conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Special Court or this Court for cancellation of the bail.

9. The instant bail petition stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant