Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010076042025 2025:GAU-AS:4589 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1115/2025 SOREIPAM SHIMRAY S/O ENOCH A. SHIMRAY R/O TUSHEN VILLAGE, P.O. TUSHEN, P.S. SHANGSHAK DIST. UKHRUL, MANIPUR, PIN-795142. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, MR. R. RAMEEZ,MR A K BORO,MR S.MITRA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 10-04-2025 Heard Mr. S. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/7 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 Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 55/2025, under Sections 316(2)/318(3)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. Further from the reading of the FIR itself it is seen that the case is civil in nature and the petitioner may approach the civil forum for proper relief. 4. Mr. Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that there is violation of Section 35 BNSS and without issuing Notice the petitioner was picked up from the house and subsequently Arrest Memo was issued on 23.03.2025. Further he submitted that after the production report he was taken for 5 days police remand and after completion of 5 days police remand he was produced before the learned Trial Court below and since then he has been in custody. The Investigating Officer got sufficient time for custodial interrogation as he remained for 5 days in police custody. 5. Mr. Mitra further raised the issue that the ground of arrest was not mentioned while furnishing the Arrest Memo under Section 36 BNSS and notice was not issued under Section 50 of Cr.P.C., 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 Page No.# 3/7 statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mitra, 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. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that at this stage to know the fact of the case, the Case Diary be called for and it seems that it is an organized gang by depicting some plea they took some vehicle on hire purchase and subsequently sold to someone else. He insisted to call for the Case Diary. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition, more particularly, the Arrest Memo. 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 50 of Cr.P.C. 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- Page No.# 4/7 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 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 invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” Page No.# 5/7 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.” 12. 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.” Page No.# 6/7 13. In view of the entire discussions made above, it is the opinion of this Court that the period of incarceration undergone by the accused/petitioner may not be a good ground for considering his bail application at this stage but, considering the fact that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner or mentioned in the Arrest Memo, 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 CJM, Darrang, Mangaldoi, the accused/petitioner, namely, Soreipam Shimray, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall appear before the Court of learned CJM, Darrang, Mangaldoi, on each and every date to be fixed by the Court; (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 them 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 learned CJM, Darrang, Mangaldoi; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Darrang, Mangaldoi, without prior permission. Page No.# 7/7 15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant