ORDER : MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, J. Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State. 2. By this application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta , son of Krishna Dutta, resident of Village-Sarisha, Police Station-Karimganj, District-Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam, (2) Imdadur Rahman , son of late Fakar Uddin, resident of Village-Dighirpar, Police Station-Badarpur, District- Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam, (3) Numan Ahmed , son of late Khalilur Rahman, resident of Village-Dorali, Police Station- Badarpur, District- Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam and (4) Rezzak Ali , son of Abdul Khalek, resident of Village-Mazarchar, Police Station-Aluoatichar, District-Barpeta, Assam are seeking bail in Patharkandi Police Station Case No.55/2025 corresponding to G.R. No.283/2025, registered under Sections 318(4)/316(5)/336(3)/111(4) BNS, 2023, read with Section 11 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, in which, they were arrested on 22.02.2025 and are in custody since then. 3. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 22.02.2025 in Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 under Sections 16(1) (2)/318(4)/316(5)/336(3) of the BNS and a co-ordinate Bench by order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Bail Appln. No. 600/2025 released them on bail due to failure on the part of the police from Patharkandi police station to comply with the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, thereby violating the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that the facts stated in the FIR relating to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 and that of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 are same and has arisen out of the same incident, except that the facts in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 are more elaborate, where Section 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 has been added. Since the petitioners have already been released on bail in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025, therefore, they are also entitled for their bail in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 as the prosecution while arresting the petitioners in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023; did not specify the ground of their arrest in the said case, neither communicated to them about it, nor to their family members, relatives or others as required under the law and detained them in custody in violation of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Bora submitted that there cannot be registration of more than one FIR against the petitioners relating to the same incident, that too, in the same police station. 5. Placing both the FIRs relating to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 as well as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel stated that from the forwarding report pertaining to the FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 it can be seen that the petitioners were arrested in the said case on 22.02.2025 at 03:00 P.M. and that in the said forwarding report dated 22.02.2025 the concerned Investigating Officer clearly indicated that another case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 had already been registered against the petitioners. From the FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 Mr. Bora, placed that it was registered at 10:30 A.M which also indicate that related Patharkandi P.S. G.D.E. No.03 dated 22.02.2025 was registered at 14:50 hrs. (02:50 P.M.). Therefore, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025, the petitioners could not have been shown arrested as in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 they were arrested at 03:00 P.M on 22.02.2025 only. 6. Placing the remand order of the petitioners dated 22.02.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Sribhumi in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the said Order dated 22.02.2025, the learned Magistrate did not indicate as to whether the authorities of Patharkandi Police Station complied with the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 by serving and/or communicating the grounds of arrest to the petitioners while arresting them in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 or not. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel in support of his arguments and in favour of the petitioners relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269; Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 ; T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 ; Babubhai Vs. State of Gujrat & Others, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 ; Dhanraj Aswani Vs. Amar S. Mulchandani and Another, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 336 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 802. 8. After hearing Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, the Court by a common order dated 05.03.2025 directed the State and the Prosecution to submit its reply pertaining to the alleged violation of provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and alleged non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 9. Pursuant to said order dated 05.03.2025, the State Government in the Home and Political Department as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police-cum-the Investigating Officer of said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 filed their affidavits on 07.03.2025 and 10.03.2025 respectively. The petitioners jointly along with the other arrested accused persons of said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 filed a common additional affidavit on 10.03.2025. 10. Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam with regard to the claim of the petitioners pertaining to the two FIRs relating to the same incident submitted that in T.T. Antony (Supra) and Babubhai (Supra), the incident involved in those cases relate to incidents that occurred on a single day, whereas with regard to Patharkandi P.S. Case Nos. 54/2025 and 55/2025, the incident involved, were of continuous process that relates to economic offences. 11. 54/2025 and 55/2025, the incident involved, were of continuous process that relates to economic offences. 11. In their affidavits, i.e., the affidavits of the Home and Political Department as well as that of the Investigating Officer of the case indicated that Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 was registered on 21.02.2025 at 11:00 P.M., the G D Entry was made at 11:00 P.M. on 21.02.2024 itself and the said FIR was uploaded on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) on 22.02.2025 at 04:07 A.M. Similarly, Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 was registered on 22.02.2025 at 10:30 A.M. with G D Entry No. 3 dated 22.02.2025 at 14:50 Hrs and was subsequently uploaded on CCTNS on 22.02.2025 at 02:50 P.M. and that the time of upload on CCTNS is solely due to server related procedures. 12. The respondent submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanraj Aswani (supra) relied by the petitioners is not applicable as the said case relates to pre-arrest bail applications, whereas, the present case is a bail application relating to the formalities of “shown arrest”. 13. The respondents also stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that a second FIR is permissible on the grounds of — (i) Different Scope: If the ambit of the two FIRs are different, even if they arise from the same set of circumstances; (ii) Larger Conspiracy: When investigation reveals that the first FIR is a part of a larger conspiracy that needs separate investigation; (iii) New Facts or Evidence: If fresh information comes to light that was not included in the first FIR; (iv) Separate Incidents: If the offences alleged in the second FIR are distinct, even though they may be similar or connected to the first FIR and (v) The second FIR uncovered wider corruption network involving multiple people over a period of time. 14. However, in both the affidavits, the Home and Political Department of the State as well as the concerned Investigating Officer of the case are silent relating to the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. Mr. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam placed the Case Diary of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025. 15. 14. However, in both the affidavits, the Home and Political Department of the State as well as the concerned Investigating Officer of the case are silent relating to the compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. Mr. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam placed the Case Diary of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025. 15. On perusal, it is seen that the relevant Case Diary does not contain anything to show that the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS were complied by the authorities concerned while arresting the petitioners. 16. Sections 50 and 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) have been incorporated as Sections 47 and 48 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which are as follows — Section 50 CrPC / Section 47 BNSS "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 50A CrPC / Section 47 BNSS “ 50A. Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc., to a nominated person.— (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Code [Sanhita in BNSS] shall forthwith give the information such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his friends, relatives or such other persons as may be closed or nominated by the personfor the purpose of giving such information. (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 abook to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in abook to be kept in the police station in such form as may be prescribed in this behalf by the State Government. (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 compiled with in respect of such arrested person.” 17. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Sarmah -Vs- The State of Assam and others, decided on 07-01-1976, reported in 1976 CRI. L. J. 1303 = 1976 STPL 89 Gauhati have held that— The provision of Section 50 (CrPC, 1898) is mandatory and must be strictly complied with. A citizen's liberty cannot be curtailed except in accordance with law. Even if any communication about the offence was orally made by respondent No. 3 (Officer-in- charge of the concerned Police Station) to the petitioner, we do not know what kind of communication was made, whether the communication of the full particulars or the mere section of the offence was told to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we hold that the arrest and detention of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 was in violation of Sec. 50 CrPC. They are illegal, and, consequently, the P.R. bond that had to be I executed by the petitioner was also a nullity. n the result we cancel the P.R. bond executed by the petitioner and he is freed from it. It is to be noted that Section 50 CrPC, 1898 and Section 50 CrPC, 1973 are same. 18. In the case of Sheela Barse -Vs- State of Maharashtra, decided on 15-02-1983, reported in (1983) 2 SCC 96 = AIR 1983 SC 78, the Hon’ble Apex Court, a Bench constituting of three Hon’ble Judges have directed, amongst others, that — “Whenever a person is arrested by the police without warrant, he must be immediately informed of the grounds of his arrest and in case of every arrest it must immediately be made known to the arrested person that he is entitled to apply for bail. As soon as a person is arrested, the police must immediately obtain from him the name of any relative or friend whom he would like to be informed about his arrest and the police should get in touch with such relative or friend and inform him about the arrest.” 19. Another Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Durga Pada Ghosh -Vs- State of West Bengal, decided on 07-08-1972, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 656 have held that — The scheme underlying Article 22 of the Constitution highlights the importance attached in our constitutional set-up to the personal freedom of an individual. Sub- articles (1) and (2) refer to the protection against arrest and detention of a person under the ordinary law. Persons arrested or detained under a law providing for preventive detention are dealt with in sub-articles (4) to (7). Sub-article (5) says that when a person is detained in pursuance of an order under a law providing for preventive detention the grounds on which the order is made have to be communicated to the person concerned as soon as may be and he has to be afforded earliest opportunity to represent against the order. The object of communicating the grounds is to enable the detenu to make his representation against the order. The words “as soon as may be” in the context must imply anxious care on the part of the authority concerned to perform its duty in this respect as early as practicable without avoidable delay. Similarly when the representation is made it is in the fitness of things that the said representation should be considered with the same sense of urgency with which the grounds are intended to be communicated to the detenu. That is the only way in which the purpose, for which the earliest communication of the grounds to the person concerned is provided, can be achieved. The representation must, therefore, be considered with due promptitude or expedition and without avoidable delay, in other words with reasonable dispatch. 20. Further, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 25.04.1994 reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 have laid down that that — “21. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. 20. Further, a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Kumar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 25.04.1994 reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 have laid down that that — “21. Then, there is the right to have someone informed. That right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by Section 56(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions Against the Police — Richard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; p. 313). That section provides: “[W]here a person has been arrested and is being held in custody in a police station or other premises, he shall be entitled, if he so requests, to have one friend or relative or other person who is known to him or who is likely to take an interest in his welfare told, as soon as is practicable except to the extent that delay is permitted by this section, that he has been arrested and is being detained there.” These rights are inherent in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and require to be recognised and scrupulously protected. For effective enforcement of these fundamental rights, we issue the following requirements: 1. An arrested person being held in custody is entitled, if he so requests to have one friend, relative or other person who is known to him or likely to take an interest in his welfare told as far as is practicable that he has been arrested and where he is being detained. 2. The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. 3. An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the arrest. These protections from power must be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) and enforced strictly. It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with. 22. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various police manuals. 23. These requirements are not exhaustive. 22. The above requirements shall be followed in all cases of arrest till legal provisions are made in this behalf. These requirements shall be in addition to the rights of the arrested persons found in the various police manuals. 23. These requirements are not exhaustive. The Directors General of Police of all the States in India shall issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition, departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest.” 21. It is to be noted herein that because of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Durga Pada Ghosh (supra) and Joginder Kumar (supra) the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was amended in the year 2005 and Section 50A was inserted in the CrPC w.e.f. 23-6-2006. 22. Though the background of the case of Dhanraj Aswani (supra) was pertaining to the filing of an anticipatory bail application by an accused already in custody apprehending his arrest in a different offence, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case have held that — The subsequent offence is a separate offence for all practical purposes and that would necessarily imply that all rights conferred by the statute on the accused as well as the investigating agency in relation to the subsequent offence are independently protected. 23. Therefore, from the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhanraj Aswani (supra) it is clear that each case of subsequent offence are independent and the investigating agency in relation to the said subsequent offence have to comply with all the mandatory provisions including while arresting an accused of the case. 24. Though the Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 and Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 might have arisen from the same offence, but prima facie it appears to be continuous offence and that the Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 is different from the Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 as in the Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 Section 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 has been added. 25. In the cases of Pankaj Bansal Vs. 25. In the cases of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Prabir Purakayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that – the right to be informed about the ground of arrest flows from Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and that any infringement of said fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand as the grounds on which the liberty of a citizen is curtailed must be communicated to him in writing so as to enable him/her to seek remedial measures against the deprivation of liberty. In the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court have laid down that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. 26. In the case of Prabir Purakayastha (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified “grounds of arrest” specifying that it would require to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitate 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/she was being arrested so as to provide him/her an opportunity of defending himself/herself 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. 27. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that — The requirement of informing the person arrested of the grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22 (1) included in the Part-III of the Constitution under the heading of Fundamental Rights, as such, 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 violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1) which would also amount to depriving the arrestee of his/her liberty, since Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person can be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and the procedure established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1). 28. In the said case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that — 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 granted under Article 21 and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds to arrest as soon as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated and once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) have held that — the requirement of Section 60 CrPC is in addition to what to provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 of the BNSS is the correspondent provision and therefore, what the Apex Court have held about Section 50 CrPC will apply to Section 47 of the BNSS. 30. In the case in hand the respondent authorities failed to place anything before the Court that the grounds of arrest in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 was communicated to the petitioners in writing, violating Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution as well as provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. As such, the arrest of the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta, (2) Imdadur Rahman, (3) Numan Ahmed, and (4) Rezzak Ali shown on 22.02.2025 in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 being illegal as they were not provided and/or communicated with the grounds of arrest in violation of their fundamental right, stands vitiated. 31. As such, the arrest of the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta, (2) Imdadur Rahman, (3) Numan Ahmed, and (4) Rezzak Ali shown on 22.02.2025 in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 being illegal as they were not provided and/or communicated with the grounds of arrest in violation of their fundamental right, stands vitiated. 31. Therefore, the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta , son of Krishna Dutta, (2) Imdadur Rahman , son of late Fakar Uddin, (3) Numan Ahmed , son of late Khalilur Rahman and (4) Rezzak Ali , son of Abdul Khalek, shall be released forthwith in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No.55/2025. 32. Accordingly, the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta , son of Krishna Dutta, (2) Imdadur Rahman , son of late Fakar Uddin, (3) Numan Ahmed , son of late Khalilur Rahman and (4) Rezzak Ali , son of Abdul Khalek be released on bail forthwith in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Sribhumi, Karimganj (erstwhile District-Karimganj). 33. Bail application is accordingly stands disposed of. 34. Return the case diary.