Gauhati High Court
AB/3/2026 of Sh. Lalhmunmawia Vs The State of Mizoram on 9 March 2026
GAHC030001152026 THE GAUHATI
GAHC030001152026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : AB/3/2026
Sh. Lalhmunmawia
S/o Ramfanzauva, Zemabawk, Aizawl
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 KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
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
10.03.2026 Heard Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor, Mizoram for the State.
2. This pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is filed seeking pre-arrest bail to the applicant, namely, Shri Lalhmunmawia, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Kulikawn Police Station Case No. 137/2025 under Sections 308(2)/ 319(2)/ 240/ 61(2)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the miscreants took away a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- from the complainant which she was carrying. Accordingly, a complaint was filed on 17.12.2025 by the complainant, which having been registered and investigated, though the present applicant was not named initially in the complaint, however, later on during the investigation, he having been arrayed as a co-accused, is apprehending arrest in connection with the said case.
4. Ms. Linda, learned PP, Mizoram, fairly submits that though the investigation has progressed, nothing concrete has been found against the applicant so far.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have also perused the material available on record.
6. It appears that the allegation in the complaint is that the miscreants had allegedly taken away some money from the complainant which she was carrying and the applicant was not named initially as an accused in the complaint. It further appears that the applicant has been named as an accused during investigation. It further appears from the case diary that the only allegation implying against the applicant is that the applicant along with other co-accused have distributed the sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- which was allegedly taken away from the complainant.
7. Keeping in mind that the investigation has already progressed and the statement of the co-accused has also been recorded which does not implicate the applicant as such in the alleged offence, vis-à-vis, Article-21 of the Constitution of India, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not justified.
8. Accordingly, it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant, named above, he shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting authority, subject to the following conditions –
(i) That the applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case within 10 days and shall render full co-operation to the remaining investigation, failing which on and from the 11th day, the pre-arrest bail order shall have no force.
(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
(iii) That the applicant shall refrain from committing any similar offences in future of which he is accused or suspected of commission.
9. Resultantly, this pre-arrest bail application stands allowed and is disposed of.
10. Return the case diary.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant