Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010069512025 2025:GAU-AS:4928 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1025/2025 SANJU DAS S/O ATUL DAS, R/O SANGSA JUNCTION, P.O. AND P.S.-TIZIT, DIST- MON (NAGALAND) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI, MR B ISLAM,MR. N GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 24.04.2025 Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Sonari P. S. Case No. 124/2024, registered under Sections 113(2) (b)/113(3)/113(4)/147/148/149 of BNS, read with Sections 10/13/16(1) (b)/17/18A/18B/20/39/40 of UA(P) Act [corresponding to G. R. Case No. 299/2024]. 3. The Case Diary, as called for, has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way associated with the extremist organization as alleged in the FIR. However, it is admitted fact that the petitioner owns a shop where, on certain occasions, extremists forcibly used his mobile handset. Apart from this, he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the past 70 days, and considering his length of detention, he may be released on bail. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the Investigating Officer (IO) in further investigation of the case, if he is enlarged on bail. 5. He further submitted that the ground of arrest was not mentioned while Page No.# 3/8 furnishing the Arrest Memo or issuing notice under Section 47 of BNSS, which is a mandatory requirement. The non-compliance of this requirement constitutes a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials collected by the IO against the accused/petitioner, who is alleged to be one of the prime accused involved in facilitating the movement of ULFA (I) cadres. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner is associated with the extremist organization and has actively assisted in activities such as extortion, demanding money, and kidnapping. He further submitted that the case is still under investigation and several other culprits are yet to be apprehended in connection with the case. Therefore, he strongly opposed the prayer for granting bail to the accused/petitioner. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both Page No.# 4/8 sides, I have also perused the case diary and the annexures filed along with the petition, more particularly, the Arrest Memo issued to the present accused/petitioner. It is accordingly seen that while issuing the said Notice, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioner along with the case number as well as the Sections under which he was arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in the in the Notice. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused/petitioner or to his family members at the time of his arrest which is a statutory right of an accused and it is also a constitutional mandate that the person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest under which he was taken into custody of police. 9. It is the contention of the petitioner that non-communication of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 47 of BNSS, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioner invalid. The accused/petitioner has the fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and copy of such written ground of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without any explanation. Non- supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested accused/ petitioner would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held in paragraph No. 19 of the judgment as under: “19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the Page No.# 5/8 provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality 3 (2000) 8 SCC 590committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. 48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the Page No.# 6/8 arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 11. Further, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held has under: “14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.” Page No.# 7/8 12. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no mention of grounds of arrest in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS and except the name, address and the case numbers, there is no mention about any other particulars of the offence as well as the grounds of arrest. So, from the proviso of Section 47 of BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 13. In view of the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, viz-a-viz non-mentioning of grounds of arrest in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS or Arrest Memo, as well as the considering the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 14. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Sanju Das, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation of the case and shall appear twice a month before the Investigating Officer in connection with the aforesaid P.S. Case, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer; Page No.# 8/8 (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Special Judge, Charaideo; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Charaideo, without prior permission. 15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant