ORDER : Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby the petitioner Mahbubul Hoque has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. 3. On 21.02.2025, police lodged an FIR before Patharkandi Police Station with the below mentioned allegations – i. On 21.02.2025, 274 students appeared at Central Public School, Patharkandi for writing the Physics Paper of 12 th Standard CBSE Examination. This Central Public School, Patharkandi is an institution run by E.R.D. Foundation based at Guwahati. This E.R.D. Foundation is run by USTM. ii. Out of the aforesaid 274 students, 15 were from Adarsha Vidyalaya, Patharkandi and 45 of them are from Central Public School, Patharkandi. The remaining 214 students were enrolled in Central Public School, but they never attended any classes in that school. In fact, under the Vision 50 Programme, they were attending classes at USTM, Guwahati. This Vision 50 Programme was a special coaching programme run by USTM. iii. It is alleged in the FIR that those 214 students had created law & order problem on the day of the examination. Their contention was that at the time of admission, they were promised that at the time of examination, the Invigilators would help them in writing the 12 th Standard Examination. But the 214 students did not get the promised help from the Invigilators. iv. Out of the 214 students, some even did not know that they were students of Central Public School, Patharkandi. They only knew that they were students of USTM under the Vision 50 Programme. v. The said 214 students, also contended that the Invigilators and Faculty Members had helped 45 local students of Patharkandi when those students adopted unfair means to write in the examination. vi. Some students alleged that the USTM authority took Rs.5 Lakh from each of the aforesaid 45 students so that they can clear the paper. 4. The informant had alleged that the present petitioner being the head of USTM authority, cheated the students by making false promises. 5. Police registered a case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. The petitioner was arrested by police at Guwahati. 4. The informant had alleged that the present petitioner being the head of USTM authority, cheated the students by making false promises. 5. Police registered a case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. The petitioner was arrested by police at Guwahati. His wife Shahida Rahman was served with a notice wherein it was mentioned that the Investigating Officer of the case has found sufficient material evidence against her husband and for that matter, he was arrested by police. 6. After arrest, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam. It was pleaded before the court below that at the time of arrest, the provision of law as contained in Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, was not complied with. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 was also referred to by the petitioner. The learned court below had held that since the petitioner had filed the bail application before the court, it meant that the petitioner had full knowledge about the case. 7. In order to buttress his points, Mr. Bora has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 . Paragraphs 28, 29, 45 and 48 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “ 28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 45. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. 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 tampering 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.” 8. In respect of old section 50 A of the CrPC (new Section 48 of the BNSS 2023), Mr. 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.” 8. In respect of old section 50 A of the CrPC (new Section 48 of the BNSS 2023), Mr. Bora relied upon Vihaan Kumar (supra), where it has been held as under— “3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, 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 meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. 9. In Vihaan Kumar (supra), it is further held as under: 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 requirements 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 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. 25. A contention has been raised in the written argument that the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This contention has been raised for the first time in written submissions before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court. The police submit a remand report before the learned Magistrate for seeking remand without serving a copy thereof to the arrestee. The reason is that the Police cannot divulge the details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. 26. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant's wife was informed about the arrest. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. 26. The stand taken before the High Court was that the appellant's wife was informed about the arrest. Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo. The arrest memo incorporates the name of the arrested person, his permanent address, present address, particulars of FIR and Section applied, place of arrest, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused and name, address and phone number of the person to whom information about arrest has been given. We have perused the arrest memo in the present case. The same contains only the information stated above and not the grounds of arrest. The information about the arrest is completely different from information about the grounds of arrest. Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.” 10. Mr. Phukan has prayed for calling the Case Diary. According to Mr. Phukan, no illegality has been committed by the authority. He submitted that if this Court goes through the Case Diary, everything will be clear. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 12. At this stage, a brief visit to Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 would be fruitful, which reads 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. 48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about arrest, etc., to relative or friend. (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. 48. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about 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 nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district. (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. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India was complied with. Because its non-compliance renders the arrest illegal and therefore, the arrested person cannot be remanded after arrest. 14. The very purpose of insertion of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 is to inform the arrested person or his relatives or friends or persons nominated by him, so that they would be able to take immediate and prompt action to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. 15. The wife of the present petitioner was served with a Notice informing about the arrest of her husband but the said Notice did not inform her about the reason for which he was arrested. 15. The wife of the present petitioner was served with a Notice informing about the arrest of her husband but the said Notice did not inform her about the reason for which he was arrested. Article 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India prescribes that when a person is arrested in a case, he must be informed about the grounds of his arrest and that too in writing. The requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the ground of detention in writing to a person arrested in an offence, as provided under Article 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. 16. The opinion, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sribhumi, that since the petitioner had filed a bail application in the court, it was sufficient to hold that the petitioner had the full knowledge about the case for which he was arrested, is an unacceptable and unreasonable proposition. A court of law is not entitled to presume anything if it is not allowed by the statute. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) was relied upon by the petitioner before the court below. Even, the order dated 22.02.2025 has also referred to that judgment. It appears that the learned court below was not interested in spending valuable judicial time to read the judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Vihaan Kumar (supra), in spite of the fact that Article 141 of the Constitution of India lays down that the law declared by the Supreme Court of India shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. 17. This Court is of the opinion that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, the provisions of law as laid down in Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 were not complied with. In this way, the arrest of the petitioner also violated the constitutional provisions as referred to above. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner must be accepted by this Court. 19. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed. 20. In this way, the arrest of the petitioner also violated the constitutional provisions as referred to above. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner must be accepted by this Court. 19. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed. 20. The petitioner Mahbubul Hoque who arrested in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025 shall be released on bail of Rs.30,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi (erstwhile Karimganj). With the aforesaid direction, the bail application is disposed of.