Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010137612025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2076/2025 SRI TAPESWAR RAY S/O RAMKAILASH RAY RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 9, MAJHAILI, VAISHALI, BIDUPUR RS, PS BIDUPUR, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R RONGMEI, D GONMEI,M N RONGMEI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : Heard Mrs. R. Rongmei, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/9 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, seeking Bail in respect of the accused/petitioner namely Sri Tapeswar Ray, in connection with Silchar P.S. Case No. 543/2025 under Section 21(C)/29 NDPS Act, arising out of G.R No. 943/2025. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 22/05/2025 at around 7:15 PM, Silchar PS received information regarding transportation of suspected contraband at ISBT Ramnagar. A police team led by SI(P) Debabrat Das was dispatched to the spot. Around 8:00 PM, they intercepted the accused, Tapeswar Ray of Vaishali, Bihar, carrying a duffle bag. Upon questioning, he allegedly admitted that the bag contained drugs. Following due procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in presence of independent witnesses, a search was conducted, and suspected heroin was seized. The entire process was recorded and documented properly. During interrogation, the accused reportedly confessed to involvement in an inter-state contraband racket operating in Cachar and nearby states. Based on this, the present case was registered under Silchar P.S. case No 543/2025 U/S 21(C)/ 29 NDPS Act, arising out of G.R No. 943/2025 started investigation and arrested the petitioner on 22.05.2025 and was remanded to jail custody on the same day and since then he is languishing in jail. 4. While the prosecution claims compliance with procedural norms, the petitioner was served with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, but was not informed of the grounds of his arrest as Page No.# 3/9 required under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, as such it violated the Article 21 and 22 of Constitution of India, as contended by the petitioner. 5. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 has held that it is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) that the information of the ground of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is impact and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language he understands. 6. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that the material available on record thoroughly incriminates the accused person which is why the Charge-sheet has been submitted against him alongwith the other accused persons. With regard to non- furnishing the grounds of arrest, as required under Section 50 and 50A of Cr.PC, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702, wherein it has been held that mere non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest would not be ipso facto vitiate the arrest and the test of prejudice is required to be applied. 7. I have perused the materials on record, more particularly the order sheets of the Magistrate as well as the notice under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS furnished to the accused. Page No.# 4/9 8. A bare perusal of the said notice would show that the accused was simply informed of his arrest in P.S. case No 543/2025 U/S 21(C)/ 29 NDPS Act, arising out of G.R No. 943/2025. Such notices is that the accused and his relative respectively were aware of his arrest. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha (supra) held : “30. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 31. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others, laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected.” 10. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has referred to the State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan (supra), to submit that the test of prejudice is to be applied in the event that the grounds of Page No.# 5/9 arrest are not furnished in the required manner to the accused at the time of his arrest. 11. It has been held in the State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan (supra) as follows:- “ 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23 , it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 20.1.7. In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally (2024) 7 SCC 576 represented from the outset and applied for bail shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different Page No.# 6/9 facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Investigation Agency Vs. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate in Crl.A. No. 234/2025 has held that there appears to be a dichotomy of views in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan (supra) and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr(supra) and referring to the decision of the Hon’ble 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, has held that the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, i.e., Vihaan Kumar (supra) would have to be followed. 13. In Vihaan Kumar (supra), which has held that the grounds of arrest must be intimated in such manner that the arrested has sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds effectively in a language understood by the arrestee. 14. In Sri Darshan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified a law laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) to the effect that it would be sufficient compliance with Article 22 (1) if the accused is made aware of the grounds of arrest in substances even if not conveyed in writing. To that extend, there appears to be no conflict Page No.# 7/9 between what has been said in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Sri Darshan (supra) as the later decision has extended the former on this particular aspect. 15. Now, coming to the question as to whether the grounds of arrest, in substances, have been communicated to the accused and his family member would be apposite to go through the Magistrate’s Court. 16. Upon perusal of the same, it appears that the accused was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, on 23.05.2025 and in the order passed on that date, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate noted as follows: “On being further asked, he has stated that he has not engaged lawyer from his own resources and his family members are aware of his arrest. Learned remand counsel- Deputy Chief LADC Sri Hifzur Rahman Laskar is present to represent the accused person. He is to represent the accused person till he engages a private Co Counsel on his own. On being asked, the accused person has stated that he has been properly informed by Police regarding the grounds of his arrest and the brief of the instant case. The accused person has also stated that his family members are intimated regarding the grounds of his arrest and the brief of the instant case through phone call. In view of the above, I am satisfied that accused person is arrested on sufficient grounds and while arresting them guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 is duly Page No.# 8/9 followed. Learned engaged LADC Sri Hifzur Rahman Laskar has filed petition vide no- 630/2025, whereby, raised objection against the police remand prayer of the 1.0 for the accused person stating that the accused person has shown injuries on his right eyebrow and lower part of left side chest during the time of apprehension by the Police. Furthermore, it is stated that the injuries were sustained due to assault by the police and thereby violated the guidelines of D.K Basu. Learned LADC has also prayed to provide medical treatment of the accused. Heard the I.O and the Learned LADC. Considering the submissions made by the learned engaged counsel and considering the health condition of the accused person, I deem it fir to reject the police remand prayer of the I.O for the accused person at this stage” 17. Thus, it is the finding of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the guidelines laid down in Vihaan Kumar (supra) have been duly followed, which finding is based on the statement of the accused that he and his family members were properly informed of the grounds of his arrest. Furthermore, it is seen that there is a document bearing the signature of the accused as well as that of the I.O., whereby the grounds of arrest have been stated in Hindi as well as in English and the brief of the case is also included in the said document. 18. From the above factual matrix, I agree with the satisfaction recorded by the learned CJM, Cachar that the arrest has been duly compliance with the requirements of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). Page No.# 9/9 19. In view of the above, the contention of the petitioner regarding non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest cannot be accepted. Furthermore, there sufficient incriminating material impleading with the accused in an offence under the ND&PS Act, involving commercial quantity of contraband drugs and hence, it is not possible to held at this stage that there are reasonable grounds to belief that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. 20. Consequently, the bail application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant