Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010092412025 2025:GAU-AS:5408 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1387/2025 LALIT PHUKON S/O. SRI. RUDRA PHUKON, R/O. NAKACHARI, DEBERAPAR, P/S. MARIANI, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N MAHAJAN, MR. D BORA,MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 02.05.2025 Heard Mr. A. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Mariani P. S. Case No.38/2025, registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/319(2) of BNS, read with Section 21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is innocent and that the FIR has been lodged based on false and concocted allegations solely to harass him. It is contended that even if the allegations made in the FIR regarding trading are assumed to be true, without admitting the same, it is an undisputed fact that trading in the Indian securities market is not illegal. Therefore, such trading does not fall within the scope of any unregulated deposit scheme. It is common knowledge that trading involves risk; however, individuals who trade or invest do so by weighing the risk against the projected reward. As such, assuming but not admitting the allegations, the offence, if any, would fall under Section 4 of the BUDS Act, which is punishable under Section 22 of the said Act and is bailable in nature as per Section 28 of the BUDS Act. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2025, and the Investigating Officer got sufficient opportunity to Page No.# 3/7 interrogate him during this time. Moreover, the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the IO in the further investigation of the case, if granted bail. 4. He further submitted that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 47 of the BNSS. However, those grounds appear to have been considered merely as formalities, rather than fulfilling the statutory requirements, as clearly interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in landmark cases. The IO has mechanically stated the reasons for arresting the petitioner, and those reasons do not disclose any substantive connection to the subject matter of the case or the role of the petitioner in the alleged incident. Furthermore, it was submitted that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioner’s family members or relatives, as required under Section 48 of the BNSS. Instead, a simple communication was issued to the family members without informing them of the actual grounds of arrest. 5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. In the second part of the said judgment, it was specifically held that requirement of communicating the ground of arrest to family members/relatives or such other person of the accused/petitioner as may be disclose or nominated by the accused for the purpose of giving such information as provided under Section 50A [corresponding to Section 48 of BNSS] may be noted, this is an addition of the requirement as provided under section 50(1) of Cr.P.C. He further emphasized on paragraph Nos. 2 & 3 of the second part of the said judgment which read as under: “2. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Page No.# 4/7 Constitution of India, which has also been incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 under Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C (Section 47 of BNSS). It may also be noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information as provided under Section 50A of the Cr.P.C. As may be noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C. 3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the Cr.P.C, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to Page No.# 5/7 his relatives is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualizing the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.” 6. Thus, Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the family members of the accused/petitioner constitutes a complete violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submits that on this ground alone, the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the grounds of arrest were communicated to the accused/petitioner through the notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS. He further contends that no such ratio, as claimed by the petitioner, has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) with regard to the communication of the grounds of arrest. 8. In response, Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that “information of arrest” and “grounds of arrest” are distinct requirements. In Page No.# 6/7 the present case, there was no communication of the grounds of arrest to the petitioner’s family members, relatives, or friends. The communication made was merely an intimation of arrest, devoid of any mention of the grounds, thereby vitiating the arrest itself. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, it is observed that although some grounds of arrest were mentioned in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, admittedly, no such grounds were stated in the notice issued under Section 48 of the BNSS, which is a mandatory requirement. The non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest to the family members of the accused/petitioner amounts to a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that “the requirement of informing the person arrested on the grounds of arrest is not merely a formality, but a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22 of the Constitution.” 11. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the friends, relatives, or family members of the accused/petitioner. Considering this aspect of the matter, and noting that the IO got ample opportunity to interrogate the petitioner while in custody, I find it to be a fit case to enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail. 12. 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 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Titabar, Jorhat, the accused/petitioner, namely, Lalit Phukan, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: Page No.# 7/7 (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (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 their Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Titabar, Jorhat; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Titabar, Jorhat, without prior permission. 13. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant