Sh. Lalchhanhima Vs The State of Mizoram

3. The facts as disclosed in the FIR are that an information was received by the respondent No. 2 from CADS, Central YMA, on 20.02.2026 at around 3:00 p.m. to the effect that Shri. Lalchhanhima of Chanmari was suspected to possess Alprazolam, Alpie-0.5 mg inside his Scooty, and pursuant to which a party was formed to locate the said Lalchhanhima. On the same day at 4:00 p.m., the suspected person was located at Zarkawt, Babutlang where he had already been detained by some members of CADS. Thereafter, search was conducted of the vehicle (Scooty) of Shri Lalchhanhima, wherein 121.2 grams (1200 tablets) of suspected Alprazolam Alpie kept in two boxes, was recovered and seized by preparing seizure memo. The said Scooty bearing Reg. No. Ms. Zairemsangpuii-01 AB 3278, along with the ignition key and smart card was also seized on the spot.

¶22

4. It was further alleged that the petitioner, on being interrogated, disclosed that he still kept Alprazolam inside his residence at Chanmari, and pursuant to which they proceeded to his residence at Chanmari, wherein another 939.3 grams (930 tablets) of suspected Alprazolam Alpie kept in 16 boxes, was recovered and seized inside the residence of Shri. Lalchhanhima on the same

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

day at 4:35 p.m. by preparing seizure memo. Then, Shri Lalchhanhima was arrested on 20.02.2026 at 4:35 p.m. by preparing an arrest memo. The total weight of the seized Alprazolam was recorded as 1.060 Kgs (10500 tablets). Thereafter, a report of seizure and arrest was submitted to the Officer-in-Charge of Anti-Narcotics Squad by the seizing officer with a prayer to register a case against the petitioner and as such, case was registered under Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 against the petitioner. After the petitioner was remanded in Excise custody for a period of 48 hours, he was forwarded to judicial custody on 22.02.2026.

¶25

5. Mr. B Lalramenga, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn the attention of the Court to the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS, as well as the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS by the Police.

¶26

6. It is pointed out that the relevant provision of law, namely, Section 22(c) of the ND&PS Act, under which the case has been registered, has not been mentioned in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, although Section 8(c) has been mentioned. In response, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that Section 8(c) of the ND&PS Act is the substantive provision and therefore, non-mentioning of Section 22(c), which is the penal Section, is not of much consequence, more so since the grounds of arrest have been clearly mentioned

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

in the said notice.

¶29

7. Further, referring to notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is neither any mention of the grounds of arrest in the said notice nor any signature of the noticee/relative of the accused. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits, with reference to the arrest memo, that it has been stated therein that the wife of the arrested person has been informed on the spot.

¶30

8. From the above, it is evident that a defective notice under Section 48 of

¶31

the BNSS was issued, which was devoid of any grounds of arrest, and most importantly, there is no proof of service of the said notice, inasmuch as the signature of the noticee is not available on the same notice.

¶32

9. The mere fact that it is mentioned in the arrest memo that the wife of

¶33

the arrested person was intimated on the spot cannot be regarded as proof of service of the notice. The very fact that no signature was obtained from her either on the notice or on the arrest memo, despite the claim that she was present on the spot, belies the contention of the prosecution.

¶34

10. From the above, it is evident that there has been clear violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS in the instant case, which vitiates the

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

arrest, as held by the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269.

¶37

11. Having regard to the above, the prayer for bail is allowed. The petitioner, Shri. Lalchhanhima, shall be released on bail of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties

¶38

each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court, ND&PS Act, Aizawl.

¶39

12. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Court, Aizawl without the permission of the Court and shall not try to influence the witnesses or hamper the investigation in any manner.

¶40

13. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Sh. Lalchhanhima v. The State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Lalchhanhima 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

Sh. Rosiamliana Ralte Vs The State of Mizoram

Mahananda Das Vs State of Assam and Anr.

Rahul Nath Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

K.Lalthianghlimi Vs Smt Lalrinpuii

K.Lalthianghlimi Vs Smt Lalrinpuii

Sh Kymul Hussain Barbhuiya Vs The State of Mizoram