Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010245152025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3640/2025 ASEM KANAN SINGH @ ASHEM KANAN SINGH S/O ASEM INDRAMANI SINGH RESIDENT OF YAIRIPOK LAIMANAI, ANDRO, P.O. AND P.S. ANDRO, IMPHAL EAST DISTRICT, MANIPUR, IMPHAL-795149. PRESENT ADDRESS- URIPOK SORBON THINGEL, P.O. IMPHAL, P.S. LAMPHAI, IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT, MANIPUR. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PP, CBI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. FIRUZ KHAN, M G SINGH,MR. R SEKHAR,DR AZIZ KHAN,P DAS,MR. ABHIJIT MENA,MR U CHAUDHURY,MR. T K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. G Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel for the CBI. Page No.# 2/8 2. This bail petition has arisen out of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR lodged on 24.08.2023, before the Deputy Inspector General and Head of Branch CBI/SCB/Kolkata, regarding incidents of unlawful assembling, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, criminal trespass, mischief causing damage and loss, extortion, theft in dwelling house, possession of fire arm or ammunitions, in contravention of Section 3 of the Arms Act, mischief causing damage to public property and mischief causing damage to public property by fire or explosive substance. 3. On an investigation having being taken up, a charge-sheet/final report was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) on 29.02.2024, being charge-sheet No. 02 of 2024, in connection with the aforesaid FIR. 4. After the charge-sheet had been filed, the investigation was continued and the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2025. It is the case of the CBI that the petitioner was arrested at Imphal Airport in the morning hours of 08.06.2025 and he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate in Guwahati at 4:30 p.m. on 08.06.2025 itself. 5. The learned Magistrate had remanded the petitioner to custody and petitioner has been in custody ever since then. 6. Mr. G. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not a fact although recorded thus by the arresting authority, that the petitioner was arrested on 08.06.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner had been arrested on 07.06.2025 evening and had been in the custody of the arresting authority since then. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the arrest of the petitioner, there were disturbances in the locality of his arrest and due to such reason, the Government had by particular notification shut down the mobile internet services in the area. The petitioner was thereafter taken to the Airport on the morning of 08.06.2025, from where he was brought to Guwahati and produced before the learned Magistrate. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since internet services were not functional in the place of arrest, which is borne by the records of the Government notification, it cannot be the case of the arresting authority that appropriate written communication had been given to the family/relative/friend of the petitioner by any means, when it is also an admitted position that due to disturbances, movement of persons within the areas of arrest was itself restricted to great extent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is an admitted fact that no written Page No.# 3/8 communication was physically handed over to any family/relative/friend of the accused and only stand taken by the arresting authority was that the friend of the petitioner had been called up on his mobile on a number supplied by the petitioner and the wife of the petitioner was also with the friend of the petitioner and therefore the wife of the petitioner had enough information regarding the reasons and grounds of arrest of the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the whatsapp number on which the arresting authority has alleged that the grounds of arrest had been sent is not the whatsapp number of the wife of the petitioner and is which he never gave to the arresting authority. It is case of the arresting authority that the number was given by the wife of the petitioner when they had a telephonic discussion and therefore the ground of arrest, as prepared, had been forwarded to that particular whatsapp number. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the absence of the ground of arrest being made known to the family/relative/friend of the petitioner, the arrest of the petitioner would be vitiated, as has been laid down by different judgment of the Apex Court. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the assertion of the arresting authority that the messages were sent through whatsapp cannot be relied upon in any manner since it is notified by the Government notification that the internet services would be shut down from 11.45 p.m., on 07.06.2025 for the next 5 days. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there was no transit remand acquired by the arresting authority to have the petitioner shifted from Manipur to Assam and therefore when the petitioner was not produced before the immediate Remand Magistrate without there being any further cause shown, the arrest of the petitioner gets vitiated. 14. Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel appearing for the CBI has submitted that although by the notification issued on 07.06.2025, the Government had declared that the internet services should be shut down, a closer perusal would reveal that only the mobile internet services had been shut-down while the other lease Wi-Fi services were functional, therefore any assumption that the ground of arrest could not have been sent by whatsapp is erroneous. 15. The learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that it was an admission on the part of the petitioner himself before the arresting authority that the wi-fi in his residence is functioning and therefore anything sent to the number given by him to his wife would be received by his wife and that Page No.# 4/8 would be sufficient service of notice as required in law regarding the ground arrest of the petitioner. 16. The learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that it is not a fact that the petitioner had been arrested on 07.06.2025 rather he was arrested on 08.06.2025, inside the Airport premises on specific information received by the arresting authority. Since the situation at that point of time at place of arrest did not permit him to be produced before the nearest Remand Magistrate, the arresting authority had to take decision to hold him inside the Airport, which was a public place, till the time arrangements could be made to have the petitioner brought out of the place of discomfort and produced before the Remand Magistrate at Gauhati, which was the next nearest Magistrate. She has submitted since the arrest was on 08.06.2025 and it is an admitted position that the accused was produced before the learned Magistrate at Guwahati, within 24 hours i.e. at 4.30 p.m. on 08.06.2025 itself, it cannot held that the petitioner had suffered any prejudice of defending himself at the time of his production for remand. 17. The learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that the order passed by the learned Remand Magistrate at the time of production would itself reflect that the petitioner had understood the grounds of arrest, and that he had made his own arrangement for a counsel to represent him before the learned Remand Magistrate. 18. Controverting the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if it is assumed that the petitioner had arranged for a counsel to appear for him before the learned Remand Magistrate, the petitioner was highly prejudiced during his defence at the stage of remand since the family, friend or relatives of the petitioner did not have knowledge about the grounds of arrest and the petitioner himself being in custody could not give the proper instructions to the counsel. 19. The learned counsel for the CBI had submitted that the situation at the relevant point of time during the arrest was not one that the petitioner could be taken out of the Airport premises to be produced before Remand Magistrate and even as of today the situation remains the same. It was only after a thorough investigation that a decision to arrest the petitioner had been taken up by the arresting authority to aid the further investigation and she has submitted in the prevalent situation if the petitioner is granted the privilege of bail for any reason whatever, the petitioner may abscond or the situation prevalent in Manipur, for which he had been arrested, may again aggravate, the petitioner being one of the main accused persons, being alleged commander of the main group who rioted in the Battalion and committed violence. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted once an arrest found to be vitiated in law and it is found that the same was in violation of the protection granted to the citizens of India under Page No.# 5/8 Article 22 (1) of the Constitution, there would be no other option but hold such arrest to be violation of law and the arrested person deserves to be set at liberty forthwith. 21. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have perused the different records placed before this Court, either on requisition or on requests by the learned counsel for the CBI and learned counsel for the petitioner. 22. Although at the initial stage, it would appear that much deliberations would be required to decide as to whether the arrest of the petitioner was in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court and in violation of the constitutional rights granted to the citizens of India on Article 22 (1), on going to the records this Court finds certain un-disputed facts which would be of assistance in adjudication of the matter. 23. It is not in dispute by any parties that; (i) The internet services in the locality of arrest of the petitioner had been shut down by the Government vide notification issued on 07.06.2025, with effect from 11.45 p.m. onwards. It is not in dispute that in spite of the aforesaid notification leased lines and wi-fi were functioning in certain areas within the locality. (ii) It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been shown arrested on 08.06.2025 at the Airport premises which is reflected in the arrest memo. The petitioner has raised dispute to the extent that he was arrested on 07.06.2025 and factum of his arrest has been recorded on 08.06.2025. However, it remains off fact that the arrest memo shows the arrest of the petitioner at 9:40 a.m. in the arrest memo itself. (iii) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not produced before the nearest Remand Magistrate at Manipur and further his arrest memo has not been signed by any responsible person who would have been available within the Airport premises. This court also notices that in view of the situation claimed to be prevailing in the locality on the arrest of the petitioner, the Airport could be one of the most secured place where senior and responsible official would have been present allowing the arresting authority to have approached any such person to attest the arrest of the petitioner within the Airport premises. (iv) It is not in dispute that the phone number on which the arresting authority claims to have made an attempt to inform about the arrest belongs to a family member of the petitioner, either the daughter or the wife since the arresting authority contends that although the phone might has been Page No.# 6/8 being used by the daughter, the number remains in name of the mother. It is not in dispute that though the arresting authority may had made an attempt forwarding the grounds of arrest to a particular number, the grounds of arrest sent by whatsapp on that number was received by that number only at 4:17 p.m. on 08.06.2025. 24. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been produced before the learned Remand Magistrate at 4:30 p.m. on 08.06.2025. In the absence of appropriate material being placed before this Court regarding the actual date and time of arrest of the petitioner, whether it was only 8th of Jun, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. or was on time prior that evening, this Court does not venture to base the decision on such disputed facts. However, this Court notices that indeed the grounds of arrest of the petitioner had not been made known to his family/relatives/ friend in a manner acceptable in law and even if it is assumed that the said grounds of arrest could be sent by whatsapp to the number as shown by the arresting authority, the same was received at that particular phone number only about 13 minutes prior to the petitioner being produced before the learned Magistrate at Guwahati. 25. This Court also noticed that the arresting authority did not get the arrest of the petitioner attested by any responsible or authoritative person at the place of arrest and there is no assertion that none was available at the place of arrest to have given such attestation. 26. A submission has however been made that, given the prevalent situation at the place of arrest, none had agreed to attach the memo of arrest. 27. In view of our finding that the friend, family or relatives of the petitioner had been informed about the grounds of arrest only 13 minutes prior to the production before the Magistrate, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner and or his friend/family/relatives did not have the opportunity to effectuate a proper defence during the time of his production for the remand. 28. The arresting authority has not placed before these Court sufficient materials to dispel doubts regarding the arrest of the petitioner on 07.06.2025. The grounds given by the arresting authority for not producing petitioner before the nearest Remand Magistrate at the place of arrest are not convincing enough. No effect for a transit record had been made. 29. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Constitutional rights of the petitioner under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India stood violated, thereby vitiating the continued custody of the petitioner. 30. It may be true that the Remand Magistrate recorded that the accused had his own counsel, but Page No.# 7/8 we did not find anywhere in the order recorded by the Magistrate that the petitioner was also satisfied with the opportunity granted to him for defending opposite in the prayer for remand having been made by the arresting authority. 31. This Court cannot lose site of the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious and incidents reflected in the FIR, an investigation has led to believe that the petitioner may be one of the prime accused and alleged are offence against the society as a whole. The petitioner has also proclaimed himself to be a resident of a locality which is beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court which would be competent to take up the trial. 32. As per records, charge sheet has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and the petitioner herein has been arrayed as an accused in the supplementary charge-sheet filed in the matter. 33. Therefore, even if the arrest of the petitioner is found to be vitiated due to the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court has to strike a balance to ensure that the petitioner is present to face the trial and its consequences. In the above situation this court has fit to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court, therefore directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1 lac, with three suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom shall be a Government servant serving either with the Government of Assam or with the Central Government and at least one, who should have immovable property, within the jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, Assam,and also subject to the following conditions: i) the petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge, on each and every date, as fixed by the learned Special Judge, and cooperate with the Trial, ii) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged, iii) the petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, without prior written permission; ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; iii) the petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card, Driving License, PAN Card, mobile number, and other contact details before the learned Trial Court, if Page No.# 8/8 the same have not been seized by the CBI officials; v) the petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any(if not already surrendered) before the learned Special Judge, CBI. Vi) the petitioner shall also not engage himself in social media posting or uploading of videos made after his arrest and/or shall not upload videos/posts about the case any further; he shall not discuss the case publicly online, he shall not contact the complainant in any manner whatsoever; and he shall also not circulate any material related to the FIR or investigation/Trial during the Trial. Vii) the Learned Special Judge shall be at liberty to impose such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioners in the trial. Viii) The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 34. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant