Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010104112025 2025:GAU-AS:13352 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1697/2025 SRI LAISHRAM PREM SINGH S/O- LATE SHANTIKUMAR SINGH R/O- VILLAGE- THOUBAL OKRAM P.S.-THOUBAL DIST.- THOUBAL. STATE- MANIPUR VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION REPRESENTED BY ITS RETAINER COUNSEL CBI ------------ Advocate for : MR. R SEKHAR Advocate for : RC CBI appearing for CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 25.09.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumar, learned Standing counsel, CBI. Page No.# 2/8 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Laishram Prem Singh, who stated to be in under trial detention since 09.12.2023 in connection with CBI FIR No. RC0562023S0029 CBI/SCB/Kolkata. The case was originally registered as Moirang P.S. Case No. 1442(8)2023 under Section 143/148/447/427/384/380 IPC, 25(1-B) Arms Act & 3/4 PDPP Act. 3. Upon CBI taking over the investigation vide notification F.No. 228/50/2023-AVD-II dated 23.08.2023, the case was re-registered as CBI case with the particulars as stated above. It may be mentioned herein that the petitioner was already in custody in connection with Singjamei P.S. Case No. 711(11)/2023, in the district of Imphal West, Manipur. He was shown arrested in this case before the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), as by then, the cases had stood transferred to CBI at Guwahati vide notification F.No. 228/50/2023-AVD-II dated 23.08.2023. In connection with the same, the court of the learned CJM, Kamrup(M) was pleased to issue a production warrant, and upon production of the accused before the learned court of CJM, Kamrup(M), the CBI made a prayer for showing him arrested, which was allowed. He was also taken into CBI remand for custodial examination. Presently, the accused is in judicial custody. The trial is stated to have not yet started, though the case has been charge sheeted before the learned CBI Court at Guwahati. The primary contention of the petitioner side is that at the time of he being arrested, there was no compliance with the notices under section 50/50-A CrPC (as it existed then) and in terms of the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 Page No.# 3/8 and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934. 4. The CBI has filed a written objection opposing the bail of the accused and contending that the nature of the alleged offences are very serious, having relation with the security of the nation and therefore, despite the detention of the accused for a significant period, his bail should not be considered at this instance. 5. It is further contended by the CBI that as the accused was produced and shown arrested on the basis of production warrant, such notice under 50/50-A CrPC is not necessary. It is also contended that the application before the learned court below, seeking permission to show arrest and also seeking CBI remand, has narrated all the grounds and reasons for the same and therefore, the accused was sufficiently informed about the grounds and reasons of arrest and hence, on that ground, he is not entitled to get bail. In support of its contentions, the CBI has relied upon the decision of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702. 6. The case diary, as called for, has been received and relevant portions perused. Both sides have annexed with their respective pleadings, copies of the charge sheet submitted in the case. 7. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it has been clearly laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that grounds of arrest have to be provided in specific details to the accused, so that he knows as to on what grounds he has been arrested and thereby is facilitated in preparing his defense and to seek Page No.# 4/8 bail. Similarly, such grounds of arrest have to be furnished to relative of the accused for similar purpose. 8. It has been held that the grounds of arrest should be in sufficient detail, in a language understood by the accused and also contain the specific reasons/grounds as to why the accused was arrested. In the event of failure to meet the standards, it has been held that arrest would be illegal and any further detention would also be untenable – thereby entitling the accused to bail. 9. On the other hand, in Darshan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has introduced a prejudice test in case of non-compliance of these procedural stipulations at the time of arrest – to determine as to whether the accused would be entitled to bail. Both the decisions of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra) have the same coram. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Investigation Agency vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate (Criminal Appeal 234/2025) after referring to the Constitution Bench judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 – it was noticed and accepted that when there are two conflicting decisions of coordinate benches of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgment earlier in point of time has to be followed. The relevant para 15 of the division bench judgment may be reproduced herein below – “In Sri Darshan (supra), the Supreme Court had negated the submission of the learned counsel for the accused respondent that an arrest would be illegal if the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C, now Page No.# 5/8 Section 47 of the BNSS. However, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the decision of the Supreme Court therein is to the effect that the grounds of arrest has to be in writing and has to be furnished to the relatives of the arrested person. Thus, there appears to be dichotomy of views in the different decisions of the Supreme Court. However, keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar (supra). Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra), we are of the view that the grounds of arrest in writing would have to be made known, not only to the arrested person, but also to the family/relative of the arrested person.” 10. On the touchstone of these principles, now I come back to the facts of the instant case. The petitioner side has rightly contended that no notice under 50/50A CrPC (as it existed then) was furnished to the accused at the time of he his being shown arrested in this case. The CBI on its part also could not place before the court any such notices to fulfill the procedural requirements. As already stated above, the argument of the CBI is that the judgment in Darshan (supra) which is later point of time, has laid down different legal positions and that the accused cannot automatically get bail. 11. It is further contended that as he was arrested on production warrant, such separate notice is not necessary. It may be mentioned here in that, one of the principles laid down in Darshan (supra) is Page No.# 6/8 that when an accused is arresed on a warrant of arrest, the same constitutes notice under 47-48 BNSS (corresponding to 50/50A CrPC). The CBI has also taken the line of argument that as there is sufficient narration in the application before learned CJM, Kamrup(M), seeking arrest and police remand, the same also constitutes sufficient notice to the accused. 12. I have perused the relevant materials and considered the rival submissions. Regarding the apparent conflict between the two lines of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is bound to follow the principle and the direction laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in National Investigation (supra). Further, in Darshan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the referred principle with regard to a warrant of arrest, which in my considered view is different from a production warrant, and that a production warrant is issued mainly for producing an accused before the court, when such an accused is already in custody in another case. 13. In the instant case, I am unable to agree with the contention of the prosecution/CBI that production warrant itself constitutes sufficient notice under 50/50A CrPC (as it existed then). Further, I am also unable to accept the prosecution/CBI contention that narration of the reasons in the petition before the learned CJM, Kamrup(M), for showing the accused arrested in the instant case and seeking his police remand – also constitutes sufficient compliance with the notices. 14. In my considered opinion, in terms of the principles laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha(supra) the reasons Page No.# 7/8 for that are clear. The purpose of the notices is informing in sufficient detail the accused as to why he has been arrested and similarly so informing his relatives. An application to the court for showing arrest or police remand cannot substitute for a notice of grounds of arrest which is required to be furnished to the accused and his relatives. Vihaan Kumar (supra), it has been specifically stated that the grounds stated in the forwarding report do not satisfy the requirement of section 47/78 BNSS and that such grounds are meant for the court rather than the accused or his relatives. Therefore, it is clear that in the instant case, there was non-compliance with the requirement of furnishing notices under 50/50A CrPC (as it existed then). Consequently, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same constitutes violation of the mandatory procedural requirements under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and thereby making the arrest of the accused in the instant case as suffering from a fatal infirmity. Further, the subsequent detention has also become untenable. 15. Though on the aforesaid grounds itself, the accused has become entitled to get bail, but another aspect also cannot be overlooked. The accused is under trial detention since 09-12-2023 and trial is yet to begin. Therefore, such a state of affairs would also be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned learned court. Page No.# 8/8 The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioner: (a) shall not abscond; (b) shall not in any manner indulge in any illegal activity; (c) shall not in any manner hamper or tamper with evidence. 17. In case of violation of any of the bail conditions, the learned prosecution/CBI shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail. 18. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant