Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040018862025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/141/2025 Aman Pansa Son of Shri Noakchai Pansa, a permanent resident of Village Pongchau, PO and PS Pongchau, Longding District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Bori, Wanglak Wangsa,Hinti Jeram,Moni Bori Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant, praying for the release of the accused, Shri Hungsa Pansa, on bail who was arrested on 17.10.2025 in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 82/2025, registered under Section 308(4) of the BNS. 3. The applicant’s earlier bail application for the release of the accused was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, on merit, on the ground that the accused is linked with the organization called the National Socialist Council of Taniland (NSCT) or United Tani Army (UTA), which operates within the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The organization engages in acts prejudicial to public order and poses a threat to the security and integrity of the State. The nature of its activities brings it within the scope of unlawful activities as defined under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 4. In this bail application, Mr. Bori, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds of arrest were not mentioned while furnishing the Arrest Memo or issuing the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, which is a mandatory requirement. He further submits that the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS was not provided to the family members of the accused. Such non-compliance amounts to a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 3/8 5. Accordingly, he contends that all full particulars of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused must be communicated to him at the time of arrest; failure to do so is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution as well as the statutory provisions, thereby vitiating the arrest itself. 6. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; (i) Pravir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 463, particularly paragraphs 22, 30 and 49 wherein it was held that non-compliance with the constitutional mandate to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest itself. (ii) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 3 Supreme 363; 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 283, particularly paragraphs 16, 21, 33 where the court reiterated the right under Article 22 (1) is a fundamental right and its violation invalidates the arrest and the consequential remand. (iii) Riyajul Sarkar Vs. The State of Assam and Anr. in Bail Application/740/2020 decided on 24.04.2025, particularly in paragraph 15 where the Hon’ble Court found it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/applicant as the grounds of the arrest were not communicated to the accused nor to his family members/relatives nor mentioned in the Arrest Memo. 7. Mr. Bori, learned counsel for the applicant, further relied on the judgment passed by this Court in B.A. Case No. 74/2025 (Gome Ligo vs. State of A.P & Ors.), wherein the accused was granted bail on the ground of violation of constitutional safeguards. He submits that where there is a violation of the Page No.# 4/8 constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, statutory restrictions cannot curtail the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. 8. He further contends that the non-mentioning of the grounds of arrest while issuing the Arrest Memo or the notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS itself amounts to a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, even without entering into the merits of the case, the present accused according to him is entitled to bail. 9. On the other hand, Ms. Jini, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submits that this Court, in the case of Gome Ligo (supra), observed that the police, in most cases, have failed to document the requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and under Section 35 (1) (b) of BNSS. The Court had even directed the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to take necessary steps in this regard and to initiate departmental action against the arresting officer for failure to record and document the grounds of arrest in accordance with under Section 35 (1) (b) of BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. A copy of the said order was directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and was also forwarded to the DGP/IGP (Crime) for circulation among all the police stations in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. However, despite such observations and directions, the police have failed to document the procedural requirements. Thus, she submits that even if the accused was orally informed, the failure to document such a critical procedural requirement constitutes a violation of a fundamental right. 10. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on record. Page No.# 5/8 11. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest. Sections 47/48 of the BNSS similarly provide that the arresting officer shall inform the person arrested of the full particulars of the offences for which he has been arrested or the other grounds for such arrest. A bare perusal of the case record and the arrest memo reveals that no written acknowledgement or recording of the grounds of arrest was provided or explained to the accused person. 12. Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS read as under: “Section 47: Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Section 48: Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc. to relative or friend. (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district. Page No.# 6/8 (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person. 13. A bare perusal of the case record and the arrest memo reveals that no recording of the grounds of arrest was made or explained to the accused person. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pravir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) and Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (supra), as well as the Hon’ble High Court in Riyajul Sarkar vs. The State of Assam and Anr. (supra), has clarified that non-compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) renders the arrest unconstitutional and illegal. The consequences of such illegality cannot be brushed aside lightly. 15. In light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application, not on the merits of the case, but solely on the ground of violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused person at the time of his arrest. 16. Accordingly, the accused, Shri Hungsa Pansa is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the trial of the case: (i) The accused shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- Page No.# 7/8 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia. (ii) The accused shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for investigation and trial as and when required. (iii) The accused 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 or to any police officer, nor shall he tamper with the evidence. (iv) The accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yupia, without prior permission. 17. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail immediate cancellation of the bail. 18. As submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been observed that despite repeated observations and directions issued by this Court from time to time, the police have failed to document the ground of arrest in accordance with under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 19. Under the circumstances, this Court, while reiterating its earlier observations, directs the Superintendent of Police, Nirjuli, to take necessary steps in this regard and to initiate departmental action, if necessary, against the Arresting Officer for failure to record and document the grounds of arrest in accordance under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 20. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police for necessary action. Page No.# 8/8 21. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the DGP/IGP (Crime) for circulation among all police stations in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 22. The bail application stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant