Smt. Laldingpuii Vs The State of Mizoram

the petitioner, namely, Smt. Laldingpuii, who has been detained behind the bars since 26.04.2025, in connection with ND&PS Case No. 27 of 2025, arising out of EXN-167 of 2025, in LLI, under Section 21 B of the ND&PS Act, 1985.

¶18

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant bail application, in brief, are that the petitioner along with her friend, Smt. Lalrampari, were arrested by the officials of Excise & Narcotics Division on 26.04.2025, at about 11:15 p.m., on the accusation of possessing 32.84 grams of heroin. Since the petitioner was suffering various ailments, she was initially granted bail by the Trial Court on 25.06.2025, on medical grounds. However, later on, the said bail was cancelled by the Trial Court vide its Order dated 04.12.2025.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the offence alleged against her. She submits that the seized contraband was not recovered her from her in person, but from the ground near which the petitioner was standing along with her friend. She further submits that the medical condition of the petitioner is also not very good as she is suffering from a large ovarian cyst

¶20

Page No.# 3/5

¶21

which needs urgent surgical intervention. Apart from that, she is also suffering from renal ailment. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the fundamental rights of the petitioner granted to her under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, as well as statutory right guaranteed to her under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023, has been violated inasmuch as the grounds for which she has been arrested in connection with this case were not communicated in writing to her relatives/friends/nominated person. She submits that any violation of mandatory requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives of the petitioner would render her arrest as illegal and on the said ground only, she is entitled to get bail in this case.

¶22

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited following rulings of the Apex Court in support of her submissions:-

¶23

Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269.

¶24

Mahir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 2356.

¶25

6. On the other hand, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

has submitted that though the quantity of contraband seized in this case is

¶28

of intermediate quantity, however, the petitioner is found involved habitually in cases of similar nature and therefore, she opposes grant of bail to her. She further submits that the intimation of the arrest of the petitioner was informed to her relatives, however, was unable to find out any written communication to the relatives of the petitioner from records to substantiate her submissions.

¶29

7. In the instant case, the quantity of contraband seized is of intermediate quantity, hence, there is no embargo in grant of bail under Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, 1985. It also appears that the petitioner is a lady and suffering from ailments of kidney as well as ovarian cyst. Further, it also appears that the prosecution side has failed to show any document to substantiate their claim that the ground of arrest of the petitioner were communicated in writing to the relatives/friends/nominated person of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, apparently, it appears that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India has been violated and on that count only, she is entitled to get bail.

¶30

8. Accordingly, the petitioner, namely, Laldingpuii, is hereby allowed to

¶31

Page No.# 5/5

¶32

go on bail of Rs. 50,000/-, with one surety of like amount subject to the

¶33

satisfaction of learned Special Judge, ND&PS Act, Lunglei, with following conditions:-

¶34

The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on each and

¶35

every day fixed by it and shall co-operate in the Trial.

¶36

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Court.

¶37

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶38

9. With above observation, this Bail Application is disposed of.

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Laldingpuii v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Laldingpuii 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

Smt. R.K. Lalbiaksangi Vs Sh. Henry Lalremsanga and Anr.

Sh. Lalhmangaihsanga and 16 Ors. Vs State of Mizoram R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 8 Ors.

Sh. Jalal Hussain Barrbhuiya Vs The State of Mizoram

Smt. Lalbiakdingi Vs The State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr.

Sh. Zohruailiana and 73 Ors. Vs Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Border Roads Development Board) and 5 Ors.

State of Mizoram through the Secretary, Transport Department and Anr. Vs Smt Zohmingthangi