Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030000082025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2/2025 Yogesh Sarda R/0/ H.No.21, Bye Lane No.9, Lachit Nagar, Guwahati, Assam VERSUS The State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr A.R. Malhotra Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 05.03.2025 Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the accused and Ms. Vaneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent assisted by Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This application under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., is preferred by accused namely, Sh. Yogesh Sarda, who has been languishing in jail hazot, since 23.04.2024, in connection with the Aizawl P.S. Case No. 96/2024, under Sections 408/467/468/34 of the I.P.C., for granting bail. Page No.# 2/6 3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Ankit Bagree, on 20.03.2023. The essence of allegation, in the FIR dated 20.03.2023, is that Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, which is being engaged in the business of advancing loan finances for the purpose of purchasing motor vehicles, SME Finance, leasing of vehicles etc. and during their routine verification of records found that 9 numbers of Registration Certificates of vehicles produced by Aizwal Area Business Manager, Jakir Habibur Rahman, who had sanctioned the loan amounts, were fake and forged and all the PDF copies provided by him shows the same QR Code with different numbers and the same were processed through his subordinates, Joseph VL Chawimawia, Vanlalthlana Ralte and Edenthara. Further allegation is that said Jakir Habibur Hussain in collusion with dealers of different car dealerships’ representatives, borrowers and guarantors and others, had cheated the organization in 9 cases, involving a sum of Rs. 63,23,000/-. 4. Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 24.04.2024, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot. Mr. Malhotra further submits that the I.O. has already completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet on 10.07.2024 and supplementary charge sheet on 02.10.2024, before the learned trial court. Thereafter, the learned trial court has framed charge against the accused and now, the case is pending at the stage of evidence. Mr. Malhotra further submits that the ground for filing this application is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. i.e. while causing arrest of him, the grounds for arrest has not been furnished to him in writing and as such, the right provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is violated here in this case and as such, he is entitled to be released on bail. Mr. Malhotra further submits that this issue was raised before the learned trial court as well as before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the bail application, but the same received no proper Page No.# 3/6 appreciation. Mr. Malhotra also submits that the accused will face the trial and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 4.1. Mr. Malhotra has also referred following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submission:- (i) Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2024 SC OnLine SC 934; (ii) Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576; (iii) Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 599; and (iv) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. 5. On the other hand, Ms. Vaneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition on the ground that the case is now pending at the stage of evidence and unless the I.O. is examined, it cannot be said that the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the accused. Ms. Vaneihsiami further submits that if the accused is enlarged at this stage he may influence the witnesses and that he hails from outside Mizoram and therefore, there is every bpossibility of jumping bail. Ms. Vaneihsiami also submits that the offences are serious in nature and are economic offences and therefore, it is contended to dismiss this petition. 5.1. However, to a pointed query of this court, Ms. Vaneihsiami submits that there is no material on the record and in the case diary also to suggest furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. Page No.# 4/6 6. Whereas, Mr. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the complainant, assisting the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the case is pending at the stage of evidence and there is sufficient incriminating materials against the accused. Mr. Zoramchhana further submits that the I.O. has already completed investigation and submitted charge sheet before the learned trial court and if he is enlarged on bail at this stage, he may misuse the liberty and that such release may also cause delay in disposal of the case. Therefore, Mr. Zoramchhana has contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record and also the case laws referred by Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the accused. 8. It is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on 24.04.2024, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot. It is also not in dispute that after completion of the investigation, the I.O. has submitted charge sheet before the learned trial court against the accused to stand trial under Sections 408/467/468/34 of the I.P.C. and the learned trial court had already framed charge against the accused and now the case is pending at the stage of evidence. 9. That, a cursory perusal of the arrest memo of the accused, which is on the record of the learned trial court, especially the Clause No. 8 of the same, indicates that the ground of arrest was communicated to the accused. But, admittedly there is no document to suggest that the ground of arrest was communicated to him in writing. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted the same at the time of hearing. 10. It is to be noted here that in the case of Vihaan Kumar (Supra) Page No.# 5/6 Hon’ble Supreme Court taking note of its earlier decisions in Prabir Purkayastha (Supra); Pankaj Bansal (Supra); and Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel vs. Union of India, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 427, held that the constitutional mandate, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 47 of B.N.S.S.). It is also held 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. And, this is in the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C. It is further held that 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 of India, meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. 11. In the instant case, having considered the fact of non-compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. by informing the accused the grounds for his arrest in writing and consequent violation of the right of the accused as guaranteed by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, this court is unable to agree with the submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant. 12. Under the given facts and circumstances and also in view of the settled legal proposition, as discussed herein above, this court is of the view that for non- compliance of the requirement of Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. the right of the accused guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is violated and Page No.# 6/6 consequently, his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also violated. Further, it appears that the accused is behind the bar for last 10 months. The trial is yet to be started and there is no immediate chance of completion of trial. 13. On such count, a case for granting bail to the accused appears to be made out. Therefore, this court inclined to release the accused on bail. 14. It is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. The learned trial court will be at liberty to impose any other condition so as to ensure his presence during trial. 15. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant