Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010076542025 2025:GAU-AS:4587 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1112/2025 LALHRIATPUIA AND ANR. S/O-ZONUNTHARA KHAWLHRING, R/O- VILL-AINAWA AIZAL,GOVT. COMPLEX, PS-ZONUAN, DIST-AIZAWL, MIZORAM 2: LALDIKDAWANGA S/O-LALTHLAMUNA R/O VILL-EDENTHAT VENG (TLANGNUAM PART)AIZWAL GOVT. COMPLEX PS-VAIVAKAWN DIST-AIZWAL MIZORA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP, BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-04-2025 Page No.# 2/8 Heard Mr. M. A. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested on 02.09.2024 in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 93/2024 [arising out of Ratabari P. S. Case No. 190/2024] registered under Sections 22(C)/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which is pending before the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimganj. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners got arrested in connection with the case on 02.09.2024 and case has already been charge-sheeted on 10.02.2025. Both the accused/petitioners are innocent and nothing has been recovered from their conscious possession. 4. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the ground of arrest was not mentioned neither in the notice under Section 47 BNSS nor in the Arrest Memo under Section 36 BNSS. 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 them at the time of their arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would Page No.# 3/8 vitiate the arrest itself. 5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Choudhury, 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. 6. Mr. Choudhury also submitted that though in the case of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act follows, but in cases where there is violation of the constitutional provision as mandated under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India, the statutory restriction will not affect the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. More so, non-mentioning of grounds of arrest while issuing the Arrest Memo under Section 36 BNSS or Notice under Section 47 BNSS corresponding to Section 50 Cr.P.C. is itself in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and hence, without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present petitioners are entitled to bail. 7. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that trial is not yet commenced and the case was charge-sheeted only on 10.02.2025. From the FIR, Forwarding Report etc. it is seen that the recovery was from the conscious possession of both the accused/petitioners. 8. Accordingly, he submitted that the case is of commercial in nature and hence, rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act will follow wherein the twin condition has to be satisfied that the accused are not guilty of the offence and there has to be a belief that the accused will not repeat or commit the same offence while on bail. But, from the materials available in the Case Record, it cannot be said that Page No.# 4/8 the present petitioners are innocent, they have not committed such offence nor there is any probability of committing similar kind of offence if they are released on bail. Thus, he raised vehement objection and submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioners on bail at this stage. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition, more particularly, the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioners under Section 47 BNSS. It is accordingly seen that while issuing the said Notice, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioners along with the case number as well as the Sections under which they were arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest in the Notice. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused/petitioners or to his family members at the time of their 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. 10. It is the contention of the petitioners that non-communication of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 50(1) of Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 47 of BNSS, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioners invalid. The accused/petitioners have 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/ petitioners would vitiate the arrest even if the Page No.# 5/8 case has been charge-sheeted. 11. 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 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 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 Page No.# 6/8 invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 12. 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.” 13. 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/petitioners under Section 47 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 50 of Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 47 BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in such cases, in spite of the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the violation of the constitution mandate Page No.# 7/8 contained under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the arrest of the petitioners is vitiated and it may be a sufficient ground to consider her bail application in spite of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which provides the restriction in granting bail in the cases of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. 14. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) has also held that even after filing of the charge-sheet, the arrest and the detention will be considered as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 16 of the said judgment has held as under: “16. An attempt was made by learned senior counsel appearing for 1st respondent to argue that after his arrest, the appellant was repeatedly remanded to custody, and now a chargesheet has been filed. His submission is that now, the custody of the appellant is pursuant to the order taking cognizance passed on the charge sheet. Accepting such arguments, with great respect to the learned senior counsel, will amount to completely nullifying Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution. Once it is held that arrest is unconstitutional due to violation of Article 22(1), the arrest itself is vitiated. Therefore, continued custody of such a person based on orders of remand is also vitiated. Filing a charge sheet and order of cognizance will not validate an arrest which is per se unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. We cannot tinker with the most important safeguards provided under Article 22.” 15. 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 BNSS and also considering the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused/petitioner 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 Page No.# 8/8 bail to the accused/petitioners. 16. 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj, the accused/petitioners, namely, [1] Lalhriatpuia and [2] Laldikdawanga, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; (ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioners shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj; and (iv) that the petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karimganj, without prior permission. 17. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant