Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010278202024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./23/2025 JAYANTA PATIR AND ANR S/O LATE BEDAL PATIR, VILL- SABOTI, NEAR LOHAR DOLONG, P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: SMTI TOGOR PATIR W/O SRI JAYANTA PATIR VILL AND P.O.- SABOTI NEAR LOHAR DOLONG P.S.-NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGHA, MR. M K NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI ORDER 30.04.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This bail application has been preferred under Section 483 of BNSS by the Page No.# 2/5 petitioners, namely, Jayanta Patir and Smti Togor Patir who have sought for bail in connection with Special NDPS Case No. 47/2024 (North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 152/2024) under section 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is the second bail application filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Earlier bail application vide No. BA 2054/2024 was disposed of vide order dated 03.12.2024 with a direction to approach before the trial court on submission of charge sheet. However, this time the petitioners prayed for bail on some new grounds by filing an additional affidavit that at the time of arrest of the petitioners on 08.06.2024 the arresting authority did not mention the ground of arrest in notices under section 50 Cr.P.C. as well as in the arrest memo which violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which resulted the arrest of the petitioners as illegal and therefore, they should no longer be retained in custody and be released on bail for the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, Mr. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that on 22.04.2024 the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP(CRL) 4118/2005 (Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra & another) has heard the matter on the same issue and hearing was concluded before the Supreme Court and the Judgment is reserved. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed to defer the matter till pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that the notice served to the petitioners u/s 50 Cr.PC as well as arrest memo does not reflect any grounds of arrest at the time of arrest of the petitioners. As it appears that the judgment is not delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Page No.# 3/5 the issue of grounds of arrest as above, as such, till date the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue vide Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 will remain in force. 6. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred the case of Pankaj Bansal, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and the Court held as follows – “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as per the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. 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 Article 22(1) and Article 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.” 7. In another case vide Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA (P) Act or for that matter any other offences. The accused has fundamental and 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 and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the Page No.# 4/5 arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 8. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 9. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that an arrested person must be informed of the grounds for his arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice served to the petitioners that the accused petitioners were informed about the grounds of their arrest in connection with North Lakhimpur PS Case No. 152/2024. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees One Lakh only) with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners: Page No.# 5/5 (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Special Judge, North Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam without prior written permission from him/her; (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (c) 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. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the findings of this court that the arrest of the petitioner stands vitiated will not affect the merits of the pending case. 12. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant