Smt. v. Lalremruati Vs The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept.

2. The present application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 of BNSS read with Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985 to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail in connection with SNPS Case No. 34 of 2024 under Section 22(C) & 29(1) of the ND&PS Act, which is pending trial in the Special Court, ND&PS Act, District Aizawl.

¶16

3. The petitioner and her husband along with two other persons were arrested

¶17

Page No.# 2/5

¶18

by the authorities of the Special Narcotic Police Station, CID(Crime) Aizawl, Mizoram on 29.08.2024 in connection with FIR No. 34/2024 dated 29.08.2024 under Section 22(c)/29(1) of the ND&PS Act, 1985. After arrest, the petitioner, along with other arrested persons were produced before the learned Magistrate on 30.08.2024 and by order of same date, the accused were remanded to Police custody for a period of 5 days. The petitioner has been suffering incarceration since then. Her earlier bail petitions, Bail Application No. 1050/2024 and Bail Application No. 1426/2024 before the learned Trial Court were rejected by orders dated 30.09.2024 and 14.07.2025 respectively.

¶19

4. Notice in this application was issued on 16.10.2025 and the requisitioned Trial Court records have been received.

¶20

5. Mr. J.H Ricky Lalruatfela, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime in any manner and that since the case has already been charge-sheeted, there is no possibility of hampering the investigation or tampering with the evidence. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has a minor daughter aged about 8 years and the child is suffering immensely in the absence of both her parents, who are in custody in connection with the present case. He has referred to the known medical conditions of the petitioner, which are also supported by documents issued by the medical unit of the Jail authorities and Government Hospitals to impress that the petitioner is in urgent need of medical attention, which she can avail properly only if she is allowed the privilege of bail.

¶21

6. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the order dated 15.10.2025, passed in Bail Application No. 371/2025, and has submitted that while this application had been filed on 14.10.2025, by the order dated 15.10.2025 passed

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

in Bail Application No. 371/2025, arising out of the same case, bail was granted to one of the co-accused by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the records of the case revealed violations of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the arresting authority had failed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested accused. The learned counsel has submitted that when both the persons, i.e. the petitioner herein and her husband, had been arrested on the same day in connection with the same allegations, the records would reveal that even the petitioner had not been furnished the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of her arrest or at any time prior to her being produced before the Remand Magistrate. He has submitted that the records would also reveal that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to exercise her right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of her choice at the time of her production after the arrest. He has submitted that in view of the settled position in law and in the absence of written communication of grounds of arrest to the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner cannot stand the scrutiny of law, deserves interference and the petitioner may be allowed to be released on bail.

¶24

7. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the case has been charge-sheeted and the Trial of the case is proceeding at a satisfactory pace. The learned Additional P.P has submitted that the records would reveal that the learned Trial Court had rejected the earlier bail petitions by taking into consideration all grounds, which are raised in this application. The learned Additional PP has submitted that the present case is one where the contraband substances had been recovered from the possession of the husband of the petitioner and the said husband had himself named the petitioner to be

¶25

Page No.# 4/5

¶26

the person who carried on the transaction. She has submitted that it is not a case where the court may reasonably presume that the petitioner would not engage in the illegal trade again or that she would not jump bail or avoid trial. She has prayed for rejection of the prayers of the petitioner.

¶27

8. The submissions made have been considered and the records received on requisition have been perused. This Court has noticed that learned Trial Court, while considering Bail Application No. 371/2025, had come to a finding, on the basis of records, that the grounds of arrest had not been intimated to the arrested persons in writing and that such non-furnishing of grounds would vitiate the arrest itself, entitling the arrested person to be set at liberty. This Court has perused the records and it is seen that indeed the grounds of arrest were not disclosed to the arrested persons in writing soon after the arrest. This position could not be disputed by the learned Additional PP. This Court therefore has no hesitation in holding the arrest of the petitioner on 29.08.2024 stands vitiated not only due to non-compliance of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India but also since it is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pankaj Bansal -vs- Union of India and Others , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 and Prabir Purkayastha -vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 .

¶28

9. This Court deems it fit to provide that the petitioner, namely, Smti. V. Lalremruati shall be allowed to go on bail in connection with SNPS Case No. 34 of 2024 under Section 22(C) & 29(1) of the ND&PS Act, which is pending Trial in the Special Court, ND&PS Act, District Aizawl on furnishing bail bond of Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with the two sureties of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, provided that one surety has to be a government servant and one surety shall be a permanent resident of Aizawl

¶29

Page No.# 5/5

¶30

having immovable property in his/her name and further subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i. 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; and

¶32

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

¶33

iii. That the accused/petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;

¶34

and

¶35

iv. That the accused/petitioner shall submit details of her Adhaar card and passport (if any) before the learned Trial Court; and

¶36

v. That the accused/petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without prior permission; and

¶37

vi. That the accused shall provide her mobile number and also mobile number of one responsible member of her family to the Trial Court.

¶38

10. With the above directions, the bail application stands disposed of.

¶39

11. Registry to forthwith return the Trial Court record without any delay since the trial is pending.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

Smt. v. Lalremruati v The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. v. Lalremruati v The State of Mizoram R/b Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Das Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Smt. Lucy Laldingngheti Vs Sh. Lalrinawma Renthlei and Anr.

Sh. Sowab Uddin Vs The State of Mizoram R/b Commissioner to the Govt. of Mizoram, Excise and Narcotics Dept.and 2 Ors.

M/S Silchar Indane Service and 2 Others Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 5 Ors.

Sh. David Lala Vs Union of India R/b Asst./Dy.Commissioner, Anti-Smuggling Unit, Aizawl Customs Division

Sh Zothankima and 2 Ors. Vs Sh Khilli Ram Meena, IAS and 5 Ors.