Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030007752025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./49/2025 Sh. Lunjapao Doungel S/o Nehgin Doungel R/o Haijang Dist. Churachandpur, Manipur VERSUS State of Mizoram R/b P.P., Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Monojit Biswas Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 01.12.2025 Heard Mr. M Biswas and Mr. Emanuel Lalthazuala, learned Counsels appearing for the accused applicant. Also heard Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/7 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNSS”) seeking grant of regular bail to the accused applicant, Lunjapao Doungel, who is in jail since 04.11.2025 in connection with Saitual Police Station Case No. 87/2025 under Section 21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (ND&PS), 1985. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.2025 upon a complaint being received from trustworthy source stating, inter-alia, that one THAR B/R NO. MN01 AW 9675 proceeding from Manipur towards Aizawl was strongly suspected to carry illegal contraband items; the Officer-in-Charge of Saitual Police Station issued a letter of authorization empowering the complainant to conduct search and seizure under Section 41(2) of the ND&PS Act. Accordingly, at 5:00 AM, the said vehicle was intercepted and upon thorough search, 218.13 grams of suspected Heroin was recovered which was concealed inside a black colored VEXTRON speaker. Accordingly, the FIR was registered as Saitual P.S. Case No. 87/2025 under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act, 1985 and the accused applicant was thereafter arrested on 04.11.2025. 4. Mr. M Biswas, learned counsel for the accused applicant submits that the arresting authority while arresting the petitioner has not informed him the grounds of his arrest and as such, the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS is totally infringed by the arresting authority. He accordingly, submits that the accused applicant is entitled to be released on bail forthwith. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Vanneihsiami, learned APP, Mizoram submits that the grounds of his arrest are evident from the grounds of arrest dated 04.11.2025 annexed to this bail application as Annexure-5 that the same have been Page No.# 3/7 communicated to the accused applicant. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and also perused the materials available on record. 7. The only ground urged in the instant bail application is as regards the non-compliance of the constitutional and fundamental rights of the accused applicant guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 8. Apt to refer to Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which reads as hereunder:- “21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. 22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.—(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” 9. Perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is apparent that an arrestee has a constitutional and fundamental right under the Constitution of India to be informed about the grounds of his arrest, at the time of his arrest. 10. In the present case, apt to the notice issued to the accused applicant under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, which reads as under – “ GROUND OF ARREST (U/S 47 BNSS) 1. Name of Arrested Person:- Lunjapao Doungel (26) 2. Father’s/Mother’s Name:- Nehgin Doungel Page No.# 4/7 3. Permanent Address :- Haijang, Churachandpur District, Manipur 4. Present Address:- Haijang, Churachandpur District, Manipur 5. Contact Number:- 8011113306 6. Occupation:- Casual Labour 7. Place of arrested:- Saitual Police Station You are hereby arrested for alleged commission of 21(b) ND&PS Act, without warrant on (Date) 04.11.2025 at (Time) 10:00 AM in connection with Saitual PS C/No. 87/2025 Dt. 04.11.2025. You are informed that the alleged offence committed by you is non-bailable offence/bailable offence. You have the right to engage a lawyer of your choice for your defense. Signature of the arrested Person Arrested by” 11. Perusal of the aforesaid notice, indicates that no facts constituting the grounds of arrest is reflected in the said notice, except that he has been arrested in connection with the case under reference for alleged commission of 21(b) of the ND&PS Act. 12. It further appears from the materials available on record placed before this Court that there are no materials available in the case diary to indicate that the grounds of arrest have been informed to the accused applicant at the time of his arrest. 13. There is no doubt that the requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Non-compliance of Article 22(1) will be a violation of the constitutional and fundamental rights guaranteed by the said Article. That apart, it will amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 5/7 When a violation of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India is established, the statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail. In fact, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused when a violation of Article 22(1) is established. 14. Be that as it may, the aforesaid case being arisen out of an offence under Section 21(b) of the ND&PS Act, the rigors of Section 37 is not attracted. 15. Upon the grounds of arrest being not informed to the accused applicant established, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith release the accused applicant. 16. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) SCConline SC 269. Paragraph 21 of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “21. Therefore, we conclude: a) The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); b) The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; c) When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirernents of Article 22(1); d) Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Page No.# 6/7 Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); e) When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and f) When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 17. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah -Vs- State of Maharashtra and ANr reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2356, reiterated that in case of non-compliance of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22 of the Constitution of India, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the arrested person will be at liberty to be set free. 18. In the present case, there are no materials available in the materials to indicate that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused applicant in such a manner that the accused applicant has sufficient knowledge of the basic facts of the case. It is absolutely clear that the grounds of arrest were not informed to the accused applicant at the time of his arrest. Hence, the arrest is totally illegal. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused applicant is liable to be released forthwith. Page No.# 7/7 20. Accordingly, the accused applicant, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforementioned case on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand), with two sureties of like amount each, provided that one surety has to be a Government Servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aizawl Court, Aizawl under the following conditions: - (i) that the accused applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the case, as and when required; (ii) that the accused applicant 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; (iii) that the accused applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Saitual Police Station, without prior permission from the concerned I.O. of the case. 21. In terms of the above, the bail application stands disposed of. 22. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant