Disposed

Smt. Mimi Lallawmzuali v. The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Excise and Narcotics Dept.and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 May 2025Bail Appln./16/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused detained 709 days in an ND&PS heroin seizure case after cancellation of earlier bail following re-arrest in a similar case. Noting half the witnesses examined, her regular court attendance, no flight risk or witness tampering, the High Court granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with Rs. 50,000 bond, two sureties of like amount (one a Government Servant), subject to five conditions.

Smt. Mimi Lallawmzuali Vs The State of Mizoram r/b the… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2025)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030002742025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Bail Appln./16/2025

¶5

Smt. Mimi Lallawmzuali UPC Veng, Thenzawl, Serchhip District

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Excise and Narcotics Dept.and 2 Ors. Aizawl2:The Officer-in-Charge Excise and Narcotics Dept. Serchhip 3:S.I B. Lalengmawia Excise and Narcotics Dept. Serchhi

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. Vanlalhriata

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram

¶10

B E F O R E

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶12

19.05.2025

¶13

Heard Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

¶14

2. This application has filed under Section 483 of the Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking enlargement of the accused/petitioner i.e. Smt. Mimi Lallawmzuali, whose earlier bail granted in Criminal Trial SR No. 35/2023 was cancelled and was re-arrested on 08.06.2023.

¶17

3. The brief facts of the case is that on the evening of 28.07.2022 at around 3:25 pm, the jurisdictional Excise & Narcotics Officer seized 25.08 grams of heroin kept in two dark colour soap cases on being produced by Joint YMA, Thenzawl at Bazar Veng, Thenzawl and in connection with the said seizure of 25.08 grams of heroin, the accused/petitioner was arrested and booked in Excise Case No. SES-184/2022 registered under Section 21(b) of ND&PS Act, 1985 dated 29.07.2022. Thereafter, the jurisdictional Sub-Inspector who conducted investigation seized the contraband articles and sent the same for FSL examination.

¶18

4. After receiving the report of the FSL and upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court, ND&PS.

¶19

5. Pursuant to the appearance of the petitioner before the Special Court, charge was framed against her under Section 21(b) of ND&PS Act, 1985.

¶20

6. The learned Trial Court was also pleased to grant bail to the accused/petitioner. However, during the pendency of the trial while the accused/petitioner was on bail, she was arrested in another case regarding the seizure of 12.70 grams of heroin which was registered as Criminal Trial SR No. 343/2023 under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and accordingly, her earlier bail granted in the Criminal Trial SR No. 35/2023 was cancelled.

¶21

7. Subsequently, in the second criminal case, the Trial Court granted the accused/petitioner bail in BA No. 14/2025 in Criminal Trial SR No. 343/2023 by Order dated 02.04.2025. Having been allowed to be on bail in that case, the petitioner filed Bail Application No. 16/2025 in the Criminal Trial SR No. 35/2023, however, the Trial Court by Order dated 02.04.2025 rejected the same. Hence, the present bail application.

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

8. Mr. S. Vanlalhriata, learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the petitioner has been languishing in Jail since the last 709 days. He further submits that since the accused/petitioner has already been granted bail in the subsequent case, she may be allowed to go on bail in the present case as well and that she will appear on all dates before the Trial Court.

¶24

9. He further submits that it is discernable from the record of the Trial Court that she has been regularly appearing before the Trial Court and facing the trial while she was on bail.

¶25

10. Per contra, Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that it is apparent from the statement of the accused/petitioner recorded under Section 161 CrPC and corresponding BNSS, 2023 that the contraband articles were seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner.

¶26

11. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that while accused/petitioner was on bail, it appears that she was arrested in connection with another FIR relating to a similar offence.

¶27

12. I have given my prudent consideration to the argument advanced by the learned counsels appearing for both the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶28

13. It appears that in the Criminal Trial, out of 6 witnesses, only 3 has been examined. It further appears that the remaining 3 are the concerned judicial Magistrate who recorded the 164 CrPC statement of the accused/petitioner and 2 official witnesses of the Narcotics & Excise Department.

¶29

14. It further appears that during the period the accused/petitioner was on bail in connection with the Criminal Trial in question, she had been regularly appearing before the Trial Court on all dates. The objective of bail is not punishing the accused/petitioner but to secure the attendance and appearance of the accused/petitioner before the Trial Court.

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

15. It further appears that there is no apprehension projected before this Court on behalf of the Investigating Officer that in the event the accused/petitioner is released on bail, she shall flee from justice. That apart, the accused/petitioner has not done anything during the pendency of the trial to hamper and tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶32

16. That being so, this Court is of the opinion that further detention of the accused/petitioner in connection with the subject criminal trial is not justified.

¶33

17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/petitioner is liable to be released forthwith. Accordingly, it is provided that the accused/petitioner named above is allowed to go on bail in connection with the above noted case with a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only with two sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a Government Servant to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) That the accused/petitioner shall regularly appear before the learned Trial Court on all dates to be fixed from time to time till the case is disposed of;

¶35

(ii) That the accused/petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court; and

¶36

(iii) That the accused/petitioner shall refrain from committing any offences similar to the one of which she is accused.

¶37

(iv) That the accused/petitioner shall submit her Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the Trial Court; and

¶38

(v) That the accused/petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior permission.

¶39

18. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of.

¶40

Page No.# 5/5

¶41

JUDGE