Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010279032024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./116/2025 LALRUHLU HMAR AND ANR S/O LALTLANTHANG HMAR VILL- GAMNOM VENG, BIDNA PART-III SUB-DIV. TENGNOUPAL P.O. AND P.S. MORESH DIST. TENGNOUPAL, MANIPUR, 2: S THANGKANLAL HAOKIP S/O LHUNKHOMANG HAOKIP VILL- NEW LEIKAT SUB-DIV. TENGNOUPAL P.O. AND P.S. MOREH DIST. TENGNOUPAL MANIPUR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR REP BY THE SC, DRI 2:SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT CHRISTINA BASTI GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A BASUMATARY Advocate for the Respondent : SC, DRI, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 01.05.2025 Heard learned counsel Mr. N.J.Dutta for the petitioners 1.Lalruhlu Hmar and 2. S.Thangkanlal Haokip, who have filed this application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 22.11.2022 in connection with DRI Case No.19/CL/NDPS/HEROIN/DRI/GZU/2022-23 dated 22.11.2022. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are behind bars since 22.11.2022. Charge sheet was laid way back on 18.05.2022. 11 witnesses are enlisted in the charge sheet as cited witnesses and out of 11 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined so far. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners. 3. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. S.C.Keyal for the respondent No.1/Union of India has raised serious objection stating that this is a serious offence and 792.35 grams of heroin was seized from the conscious possession of the petitioners. They are, thus not entitled to bail at least at this stage of trial. 8 witnesses are only to be examined. It is submitted that an objection has been filed and it has been clearly stated in the objection that this case was fixed for consideration of charges on 23.06.2023 but the petitioners were not represented by any Advocate and they have stated that they would not be engaging any Advocate to represent them. Thereafter, this matter was again fixed on 21.07.2023 when learned counsel for the petitioners sought for adjournment and the matter was fixed on 04.08.2023 for consideration of Page No.# 3/6 charges. It is the petitioners who have procrastinated the trial and not prosecution or the Court. 4. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 5. The grounds of arrest have been distinctly mentioned in the arrest memo and both the parties and the family members were informed about the grounds of arrest. Annexure-2 series at page Nos. 29, 29A, 30, 30A, 31, 32 of the petition clearly reveals the grounds of arrest. In addition to the grounds of arrest mentioned in page-31 and 32 of the Annexure-2 series of the petition, notice under Section 50 of the CrPC also includes grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are vividly described in writing in page Nos. 31 and 32 of the petition. The brief facts are vividly described in writing and both the petitioners have affixed their signatures in English on22.11.2022 in the arrest memo. Both the petitioner’s spouses have been informed about the grounds of arrest. The brief facts of the case also have been distinctly described to the petitioners. However, no copies relating to notice under Section 48 or Section 50 A of the CrPC have been annexed to the petition, nor by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Thus, it is not clear if notice under Section 50 A of the CrPC has been furnished to the spouses of the petitioners. If no grounds of arrest were given in writing to the spouses of the petitioners, then the petitioners deserve to be released on bail immediately. As no copies have been annexed, it is assumed that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the petitioners’ spouses in writing. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar –vs-State of Haryana reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283 has held that:- “2. The issue on the requirement of communication of grounds Page No.# 4/6 of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the 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 intendedpurpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC ( 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 CrPC. As may be noted, this is in the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of the CrPC.” 3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 his relatives as mentioned above 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 actualising 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. In the light of the decision of the case of Vihaan Kumar(supra), both the petitioners are enlarged on bail. 7. The petitioners named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- ( One Lac) each with 02(two) local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall not jump bail, ii) The petitioners shall refrain from such activities of which they are alleged, iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the trial. 9. On breach of any of the above conditions, learned trial court is at liberty to cancel bail granted to the petitioners immediately. Page No.# 6/6 10. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant