Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010021642025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./272/2025 MRIDUL GOGOI S/O CHENIRAM GOGOI R/O VILL-GORAIMARI NEAR AIR FORCEGATE,SALONIBARI OUT POST, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST.SONITPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 06.02.2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for granting regular bail to the petitioner namely, Mridul Gogoi after he was arrested in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No.06/2025 under Section 318(3)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/340(2)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023. 3. M/s. Agrim Aawas, Bongaigaon had lodged an FIR before police alleging that the present petitioner being their employee had defrauded large amount of money. Thereafter, the Notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 was issued to the present petitioner and he was arrested and is presently lodged in judicial custody. 4. Mr. Mahajan has pointed out that the Notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 does not disclose the reason or grounds for which the present petitioner was arrested by police. In order to buttress his point, Mr. Mahajan has relied upon a decision of this Court that was delivered in Pranab Kumar Ghosh -versus- The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Bail Application No.3777/2024. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “16. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regards to the communication of grounds of arrest, it is seen that there is no separate grounds of arrest provided to the present accused/petitioner, though the reasons of arrest in brief was communicated to the present petitioner at the time of his arrest and his signature was also accordingly obtained in the Arrest Memo. But, as per the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court for the proper compliance of the provision, the grounds of arrest has to be specific and it should be in writing by mentioning all particulars of the case and the grounds under which the accused was arrested and forward. Thus, it cannot be held that there is proper compliance in regards to Section 47(1) of the BNSS which is mandatorily required, though from the Forwarding Report and the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that the reasons of arrest was being communicated to the accused/ petitioner. It is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the accused has the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing.” 5. Mr. Mahajan further relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Prabir Purkayastha –versus- State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. Paragraphs 19, 21 and 48 of the said judgment are quoted as under: Page No.# 3/4 “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 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 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.” 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 7. Whenever a Notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued against a person before his arrest, he must be informed about the grounds or reasons for his arrest which is mandatory in law. 8. In this case, the Notice under Section 47 shows that police did not inform the petitioner the reasons or grounds for which he was being arrested. This is a clear violation of the law of the land and for this reason, the detention of the petitioner in Page No.# 4/4 this case is illegal. 9. Therefore, the bail application of the present petitioner is allowed. 10. The petitioner Mridul Gogoi who was arrested in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No.06/2025 under Section 318(3)/ 318(4)/ 336(3)/340(2)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023, shall be allowed to go on bail of ₹20,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon. With the above direction, the bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant