Sh. F. Lalthangkhuma Vs The State of Mizoram

3. On the basis of an FIR lodged on 14.11.2025 by the informant, the petitioner herein came to be apprehended and taken into custody on 14.11.2025 itself. He was produced before the learned Magistrate on the said date, whereafter he was sent to judicial custody on 15.11.2025 and he has remained in judicial custody since then.

¶20

4. The earlier petition, being Bail Application No. 429/2024, filed by the petitioner before the District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, was rejected on 16.02.2026. The investigation has been completed and the chargesheet has been submitted by the case I.O., and charges have been framed against the petitioner on 02.03.2026. By order dated 08.03.2026, passed in this bail petition, a scanned copy of the TCR had been called for, which has been received. The learned Public Prosecutor has also perused the case records to assist the Court.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the constitutional rights of the petitioner under Article 21 & 22(1) had been violated at the time of his arrest and during production before the remand Magistrate since the arrest memo did not contain sufficient details to enable the petitioner

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

to defend himself at the time of his production for remand.

¶24

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was never served with a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the notice purportedly served in compliance with the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 was also incomplete inasmuch as the same did not divulge any materials by which the father of the petitioner could have taken steps for effective defence of the petitioner during his production for remand.

¶25

7. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the arrest memo apparently contained the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and at Serial No. 10 of the memo, the reasons/grounds of arrest had been shown as sexual harassment/sexual assault. Insofar as the intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that the same contains the details of the case registered against the petitioner including the P.S Case No. and the sections under which the case has been registered and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner or his family, relatives or friends, did not have enough information so as to be unable to protect the petitioner at the time of his production for remand.

¶26

8. This Court has gone through the scanned copy of the Trial Court’s Record

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

and also the arrest memo and the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the

¶29

BNSS, 2023 as annexed to the petition. On perusal of the records, it is seen that though the case number and the provisions of law invoked are reflected; save and except that the ground of arrest was sexual harassment/sexual assault, no other details had been divulged to the petitioner at the time of his arrest.

¶30

9. Similar is the situation with the arrest intimation under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. It does not contain the signature of the person to whom it was addressed. It is a settled law that in the absence of appropriate notice to the arrested person and the family, relatives or friends of the arrested person regarding the grounds of arrest, the further detention of the arrested person would be invalid. The Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, as well as in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2026 1 SCC 500 has held that not only the details of the grounds of arrest of a person have to be intimated at the time of his arrest, but a nominated friend, family member or relative or any other nominee of the arrested person have to be intimated about the grounds of arrest in a language understood by such person, at least two hours prior to the production of the arrested person before the learned Magistrate concerned.

¶31

10. In the present case, this Court finds absence of notice under Section 47

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

of the BNSS, 2023 coupled with the incomplete notice addressed to the father of

¶34

the petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and also notices the fact that there is no record of such notice having been served on the father of the petitioner. This Court is therefore of the opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner is in violation of his constitutional rights. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioner in Bail Appln. 429/2025, had observed that there was a chance of the accused threatening the victim and the witnesses in case he is released on bail. Such a situation, in the opinion of this Court, can be addressed to imposing strict conditions on the arrested person while granting him bail.

¶35

11. Accordingly, this Court directs that the petitioner, namely, Shri. F Lalthangkhuma, shall be released on bail in connection with SR No. 1/2025 arising out of Hnahthial P.S Case No. 36/2025 under Section 75(2)/76 of BNS, 2023 on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) only, with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District. The grant of bail shall also be subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

I. The accused must not contact, threaten, or influence the victim or the family, directly or indirectly.

¶37

II. The accused shall not influence the witnesses in any way.

¶38

Page No.# 6/6

¶39

III. The appellant shall not make any attempts to reassociate with the victim or her family in any manner either through a device or in-person.

¶40

IV. The learned trial court shall be at liberty to impose such other conditions as may be necessary to ensure that the accused does not influence the witnesses or the trial in any manner and that he does not avoid or delay the trial proceedings.

¶41

V. In the event of violation of any terms and conditions of bail, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶42

VI. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Court below and co-

¶43

operate with the trial.

¶44

11. The Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Sh. F. Lalthangkhuma v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. F. Lalthangkhuma v. The State of Mizoram

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

Ahmed Hussain Alias Ahmod Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Narayan Basumatary Vs State of Assam

Rakesh Roy Vs the State of Assam

Smt. Lalhriattiri Vs Sh. Rosangliana and 6 Ors.

Sh. Borcheg Image Chakma and 7 Ors. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Vanlaltawmpuii (Minor) r/b her father Sh. Lalramsanga Vs Sh. H. Lalengmawia, Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram (Acting) and 5 Ors.