Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030008472025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./59/2025 Smt. Lalrinchhani D/o Rohnihlova, New Diakkawn, Kolasib VERSUS The State of Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS r/w Section 37 of ND&PS Act, for enlargement of the accused/petitioner on bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present Page No.# 2/6 petitioner has got arrested on 06.03.2025, and since then she is in custody. The case has already been charge-sheeted and one witness was also examined out of seven witnesses by the Prosecution. He further submitted that she is innocent and is not involved in the alleged offence and she being the permanent resident of her addressed locality will abide by all terms and conditions and there is no chance of her absconding if she is enlarged on bail. 4. Mr. Lalruatpuia Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 47/48 BNSS at the time of her arrest. There is no written communication on the ground of arrest to the present petitioner and not even the notice under Section 47 was issued to her or her family member under Section 48 of the BNSS which violates the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 5. Accordingly, he submitted that in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and in the case of Prabir Purkayastha also, it is observed that is a mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India for communication of written ground of arrest to the person who got arrested in connection with any case. But in spite of the said guideline of the Hon’ble Apex Court the arresting authority did not comply with the provision of Section 47/48 of the BNSS and hence the accused/petitioner is entitled to go on bail. However, she is ready to abide by all terms and conditions imposed on her. 6. Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that it is an admitted fact that there was no notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS to Page No.# 3/6 the petitioner but from the seizure and arrest memo, it is seen that a huge quantity of methamphetamine tablets were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner along with the others and hence considering the nature of the offence the bail application for the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage. 7. Hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. I have also perused the case record and the annexure filed along with the petition. 8. It is seen that the case is of commercial quantity and the accused got arrested in connection with this case on 03.06.2025, along with five others but surprisingly from the notice issued under Section 47 BNSS, it is seen that the name of the present petitioner is not even included in the name of the accused/petitioner in the arrest memo/notice under Section 47 BNSS. 9. Thus, it is not a case that there was no written communication of specific grounds of arrest to the accused/petitioner but even the notice under Section 47/48 BNSS were not issued to the accused/petitioner nor to her family members which is in complete violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held in paragraph No. 19 of the judgment as under: 19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right Page No.# 4/6 to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.. 21. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality 3 (2000) 8 SCC 590 committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused. 48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase 'reasons for arrest' and 'grounds of arrest'. The 'reasons for arrest' as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making 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 the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the 'grounds of arrest' would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the grounds of arrest' would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons of arrest' which are general in nature." 11. Further, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has under: "14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Page No.# 5/6 Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second." 12. However, in the case of Shri Darshan (supra) especially in paras 20.1.1, 20.1.3, 20.1.4 and 20.1.5, the Apex Court had expressed the view that the provisions does not prescribe a specific form or insist upon the written communication in every case and the substantial compliance may fulfill the object of furnishing the ground of arrest and the grounds of arrest not inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 13. But here in the instant case, it is seen that there is not even a compliance of Section 47/48 of the BNSS as no notice was issued to the present petitioner nor her family members were informed by issuing notice under Section 48 BNSS. Thus, there is not even a substantial compliance of Section 47/48 of the BNSS and thus there is no communication/ground of arrest to the present petitioner. Thus it is seen that there is a clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. And in such cases, in spite of statutory restrictions under Section 37 of ND&PS Act, this Court is of considered opinion that for violation of Constitutional Page No.# 6/6 mandate contained under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the arrest of the petitioner is vitiated and it may be a sufficient ground to considered her bail application in spite of rigor of Section 37 of the ND&PS Act, which provides the restriction in granting bail in cases of commercial quantity under the ND&PS Act. 14. In view of the above, without going further detail of the case this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the present accused/petitioner. 15. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, the accused/petitioner, namely, Smt. Lalrinchhani, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that 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; (ii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Fast Track Court, Kolasib District, Kolasib, without prior permission. 16. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant