Partly allowed

Sh. Lianchungnunga v. State of Mizoram

Gauhati HC2 Feb 2026Crl.Pet./2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court modified bail conditions imposed by Special Judge, NDPS Act, reducing bail bond from Rs. 5 lakh to Rs. 2 lakh and relaxing surety requirement from government servant posted at Aizawl to anywhere in India, holding conditions cannot be so onerous as to frustrate bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail bond reduced from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/-; surety condition modified to allow government servant posted anywhere in India instead of only at Aizawl.

Sh. Lianchungnunga Vs State of Mizoram — Narcotics (NDPS) | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC030000152026

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Crl.Pet./2/2026

¶5

Sh. Lianchungnunga S/o Lalpiangthara R/o Thingkangphai Churachanpur, Manipur

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Mizoram R/b PP/Addl. PP, Mizoram Aizawl

¶8

Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai

¶9

Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram

¶10

B E F O R E

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER

¶12

03.02.2026

¶13

1. Heard Ms. Lalngaihsaki Fanai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor.

¶14

2. This Criminal Petition has been filed for modification of the bail

¶15

Page No.# 2/5

¶16

conditions imposed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl, while granting bail to the petitioner by its Order dated 15.09.2025 in Bail Application No. 343 of 2025.

¶17

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an accused in connection with Bawngkawn Police Station Case No. 174/2024, under Section 21 (c)/29(1)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, wherein accusation has been made against the petitioner of possessing 301.57 grams of suspected heroin. She submits that the petitioner had approached the Court of the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl, praying for grant of bail.

¶18

4. It is further submitted that by Order dated 15.09.2025, passed in Bail Application No. 343/2025, the petitioner was granted bail by the Court of learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Aizawl. However, she submits that while granting bail, the following conditions were imposed:-

¶19

(a) A bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000/-, with two sureties who shall also execute the same amount of bond.

¶20

(b) One surety shall be permanent resident of Aizawl, duly living in his/her own house, one surety shall be a regular Government Servant, not below the rank of LDC posted at Aizawl, duly certified to this effect by the Controlling Officer/Head of Office.

¶21

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conditions imposed by the learned Trial Court while granting bail to the petitioner are onerous and the petitioner is unable to fulfill those. She submits that

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

the total estimated cost of the seized contraband as reflected in the Charge Sheet, is Rs. 9,00,000/- approximately and in that context, the amount of bail bond to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- is onerous and the petitioner is unable to find suitable surety, who are ready to execute bond for the said amount.

¶24

6. Hence, she submits that the amount of bail bond may be reduced. She also submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the state of Manipur and he does not know anyone from Aizawl city and therefore, it has become difficult on his part to find a surety who is a Government Servant posted at Aizawl. She submits that the petitioner will be able to provide surety including a Government Servant provided the condition that he should be posted at Aizawl, is relaxed.

¶25

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted bail by the Trial Court way back on 15.09.2025. However, as the conditions were too onerous, he is unable to find suitable sureties even after four months from the passing of the bail orders.

¶26

8. She, therefore, submits that the bail order may be modified. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau & Ors. ”, in (S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 6339-6340 of 2023), wherein the Apex Court has observed that while granting bail, the Courts can curtail the freedom of the accused only to the extent required for the purpose of procuring his attendance and impose bail condition warranted by law. It also observed that the bail conditions cannot be so onerous so

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

as to frustrate the order of the bail itself. She submits that in the instant case, due to the bail conditions imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has not been able to fulfill the same even after four months of the said order.

¶29

9. On the other side, Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for modification. She submits that since the offence in this case involve possession of commercial quantity of contraband, hence, the conditions imposed by the Trial Court are proportionate to the severity of the offence involved in this case. She, however, submits that considering the value of the seized contraband as reflected in the Charge Sheet, she does not have any objection if the amount of bail is reduced to some extent. However, she is opposed to relaxing the second condition of requirement of a Government Servant as if such condition is relaxed, it may be difficult to procure the attendance of the petitioner during Trial.

¶30

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides.

¶31

11. It is true that considering the nature of offence involved in the case, the Court granting bail to an accused may impose certain conditions so as to procure his presence during Trial. However, as observed by the Apex Court, the bail conditions cannot be so onerous so as to frustrate the order of the bail itself.

¶32

12. In the instant case, the quantity of contraband involved in this case is 301.57 grams of suspected heroin, which is a commercial quantity.

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

However, it also appears that inspite of getting bail order in the month of September, 2025 (i.e. 15.07.2025), the petitioner has not been able to arrange suitable surety due to the onerousity of the conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

¶35

13. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the condition No. (a) attached to the bail order dated 15.09.2025 passed in Bail Application No. 343/2025 is hereby modified from Rs. 5,00,000/to Rs. 2,00,000/- and the condition No. (b) is also partly modified that one of the sureties should be “Government Servant posted anywhere in India” in place of “posted at Aizawl”.

¶36

14. With the above observations, this Criminal Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Sh. Lianchungnunga v. State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Lianchungnunga v. State of Mizoram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl Branch, Aizawl r/b its Branch Manager Vs Sh. Lalzawmliana and 7 Ors.

Sh. C. Ralthanga and 52 others Vs Dr.Renu Sharma, Ias, the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 6 Ors.

Johnson Eastern Power Vs the Engineer in Chief, Phe Deptt.

Rinzuala and 68 Ors. Vs Smt Aruna Nayar Irps and 6 Ors.

Dr Lalbiaktluangi and 3 Ors. Vs Sh v.Vualnam and 3 Ors.

Sh C.Lalzika and 4 Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.