Sh. Th Onkhothang Haokip and Anr. Vs The State of Mizoram

the said FIR reveals that on information received from secret source that one vehicle driven by one person was proceeding from Manipur towards Aizawl and the said vehicle was suspected to be carrying illegal contraband items, the police stopped the said vehicle and on search being made recovered and seized 20 (twenty) bundles suspected to contain methamphetamine contents. It was also stated that the said tablets were concealed inside the backside of the vehicle. It was further stated that the said contraband items were seized from the possession of both the petitioners. The police as such arrested both the petitioners and both of them were incarcerated inside the jail, since the date of arrest, i.e., 18.05.2026.

¶22

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised two grounds for releasing the petitioners on bail. He submits that there is violation of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. The learned counsel further submits and has placed the notice that was issued under Section 47 of the BNSS to both the petitioners and had shown that the same did not contain the details of the offence under which the petitioners were arrested as required under the law. He had also shown the stipulation made in the said notice, wherein it is seen that the petitioners themselves have written the grounds of arrest in the respective column, which is quoted as hereunder:

¶23

Page No.# 3/9

¶24

"On 18-05-2026 the Saitual police on duty arrest me as my

¶25

vehicle was in possession of illegal drugs"

¶26

He submits that the said notice not only lacks the necessary information that should be given to the arrested accused persons, but also the stipulation made by the accused persons themselves in the said notice, is not permissible under the law.

¶27

5. The second ground raised by the counsel, is violation of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. By showing the notice purportedly issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, he submits that neither the said notice was issued to a particular relative as the same was not addressed to anyone nor the said notice was served to the concerned relatives of the accused persons. He submits that the said information was given to the relatives of the accused persons by telephone which is not contemplated under the law. On violation of the said two grounds, the learned counsel has prayed for bail to the accused persons. To substantiate his arguments, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 , wherein it was categorically held that a notice under Section

¶28

47 of the BNSS should contain all the details and also that a notice to the relative of the accused person should be given in writing. He has also placed reliance on the Judgments given by this High Court in different cases, wherein

¶29

Page No.# 4/9

¶30

violation of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS was considered to be fatal and in derogation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same resulted in allowing the accused persons on bail.

¶31

6. On the other hand, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Mizoram submits that on bare perusal of notices issued under Section 47 of the BSS, 2023, it is clear that the arrested accused persons were given the information that they were arrested in connection of the particular offence and that they were also given the information that they can apply for bail and may arranged sureties on their behalf. She stated that the necessary particulars of the case which included the registration number of the vehicle from where the contrabands were seized, was also mentioned in the said notice and as such, she submits that there is no violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.

¶32

7. With regard to the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS to the relative of the accused persons, she submits that since the relative stays outside the State, the police personnel from the concerned Police Station after collecting

¶33

the phone number from the accused persons had called up the relatives of the petitioners and had informed about the arrest made.

¶34

8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has relied on the Judgment rendered

¶35

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., Vihaan Kumar (Supra) ,

¶36

Page No.# 5/9

¶37

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that grounds of arrest must contain the basic facts constituting the offence and the same should be communicated to the accused person. She has also relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in 2025 INSC 768 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that for the purpose of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence.

¶38

9. I have heard the counsels and have gone through the records of the case as well as the decisions placed.

¶39

10. As far as the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS is concerned, it is no res integra that the same should contain the details of the case for which the accused person is arrested. In a number of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed that full details of the case should be given in the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS. In one of the cases, i.e., Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there is a difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest and that reasons of arrest are purely formal, i.e., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence or to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence to disappear etc. Whereas, grounds of arrest should contain all such details which were in the hands of the

¶40

Page No.# 6/9

¶41

Investigating Officer and which necessitated the arrest of the accused person. It was also observed that the grounds of arrest informed in writing, must convey to the arrested accused person, the basic facts on which he was arrested so as to provide him the opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to take bail.

¶42

11. In the instant case, on a simple reading of the grounds of arrest mentioned in the notice purportedly issued under Section 47 of the NSS, 2023, it is seen that the case number was furnished to the accused person and he was further apprised that he was arrested in connection with the said case and that he can avail bail by applying before the appropriate Court. Further, the said notice contained a column which provided for detailed grounds for such arrest and in the said column, it is noticed that the grounds were written by the accused persons themselves, wherein it was stated that on 18.05.2026, the police on duty arrested them as their vehicle was found in possession of illegal drugs. The said stipulation in the column of the grounds of arrest is bizarre. The grounds of arrest should have been written by the police personnel who had arrested the accused persons but the language clearly shows that it was the version of the arrested accused persons. This shows there is a clear violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Furthermore, no details which were in hands of the police officer and which necessitated the arrest of the accused persons,

¶43

Page No.# 7/9

¶44

were given by the police personnel in the said grounds of arrest.

¶45

12. As far as notice under Section 48 BNSS is concerned, it is settled by the

¶46

Hon'ble Supreme Court that information has to be given to the relative of the arrested accused person in writing and it is not a mere formality and it should be followed strictly.

¶47

13. In the instant case, it is seen that the notice purportedly issued under Section 48 of the BSS, does not refer to whom it is addressed. However, from the second paragraph, it can be deduced that the information was given to the wife of the accused persons. It was further stated therein that since wives of the accused persons could not come down to the concerned Police Station, i.e., Saitual Police Station, the information about the arrest of their husbands, was given by way of a phone call. This procedure is also not contemplated under the law. It is required that if the relative of the accused person stays elsewhere or outside the State, the concerned Police Station, where the accused person is arrested should give the necessary information to the jurisdictional Police Station, where the relative stays and that the police personnel from the said jurisdictional Police Station should inform the said relative by serving the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, in writing.

¶48

14. It has been held in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) that purpose of

¶49

communicating the grounds of arrest to the arrested person as well as to the

¶50

Page No.# 8/9

¶51

relatives of the arrested person, is not merely a formality but to enable the

¶52

persons to know the reasons of their arrest and also to know the necessary particulars as to why the person was arrested. It was further observed that communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only required to be given to the arrested accused person, but also to the friends or relatives, nominated by the accused person and if the same is not done, there will be violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It was also observed that if the said procedure is not followed, then such arrest is rendered illegal and the person gets entitled to be released forthwith.

¶53

15. In the notice, purportedly issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, violation is not only to the extent that the same was not given in writing to the relative, but also the grounds shown in the said notice was illegal to the effect that the said relative was called to the police station and due to her inability to come to the said place, information was given by phone. As such, this Court holds that there is violation of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS, 2023 in the instant case.

¶54

16. As such, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the petitioners on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- each, with one local surety, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge, NDPS Court, Aizawl, under the following conditions:

¶55

Page No.# 9/9

¶56

(i). The petitioners will appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶57

(ii). The petitioners will not influence any witnesses connected to the instant case.

¶58

(iii). The petitioners will not hamper any evidence in respect to the present case.

¶59

(iv). The petitioners will not leave the State of Mizoram without the permission of the Investigating Officer.

¶60

17. The petition is disposed of.