Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010030062025 2025:GAU-AS:5108 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./397/2025 GITASREE SINHA D/O LT. AJIT SINHA R/O UDAY NAGAR, KOINADHARA BYE LANE -15, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, MR A AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. A AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI O R D E R 28.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.R. Page No.# 2/6 Kaushik, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, namely, Smti Gitasree Sinha, who has been arrested on 16.10.2023 in connection with Sessions Case No. 51/2024 arising out of Basistha P.S. Case No. 621/2023, registered under Section 120(B)/302 of IPC, R/W Section 25(1)(a)/27(1)(a) of Arms Act, which is pending for trial in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The facts of the case is that an FIR was filed on 13-10-2023 alleging inter-alia that on 12-10-2023 at about 8 P.M., some miscreants coming in a two motorcycles shot the brother of the informant i.e., Anjan Nath, while he was sitting on a bike near Khanapara Ganesh Mandir and after being admitted in the nearby hospital, he was declared dead by the doctors at the hospital. It is the alleged case of the prosecution that the petitioner, who is the sister-in- law of the informant along with her mother, former husband, along with some others are suspected to have shot dead the informant's brother in a planned manner. Accordingly, a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. 4. Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest of the petitioner is totally illegal and invalid inasmuch as the arresting authorities has not informed the petitioner the grounds of arrest at the time of her arrest. He, accordingly, submits that the petitioner's constitutional and fundamental rights having been violated by the arresting authority, the petitioner is entitled to be released forthwith. He further submits that the petitioner has been wrongly and illegally detained since last 1 year 6 months 13 days. Page No.# 3/6 5. Per contra, Mr. R. R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that the allegations are grave in nature and the trial is going on, wherein, charges have been framed, however, no witnesses till date has been examined. He further fairly submits that the arrest memo and the notice issued under Section 50 of Cr.P.C., does not indicate the grounds of arrest being informed to the petitioner at the time of her arrest. 6. I have heard the submissions made at the Bar and perused the case diary. 7. It appears that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since last 1 year 6 months 13 days. It further appears that the primary ground for bail urged in the instant bail application is non-compliance of the constitutional and fundamental rights of an arrested person under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Apt to refer to Article 22(1) of the constitution of India, which reads as here under:- “22(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid Article, it is abundantly clear that the arrestee has a constitutional and fundamental right to be informed of the grounds of his/her arrest by the arresting authority at the time of such arrest. Any violation of such procedure would infringe the very constitutional and fundamental right to liberty guaranteed to the arrested person to the arrestee under Article 22(1) by the constitution of India. 9. At to refer to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 50 Cr.P.C., which reads as here under:- NOTICE U/S 50 Cr. PC. Page No.# 4/6 “To. Miss Gitashree Sinha (29 Yrs) D/O Sri Ajit Sinha Of Uday Nagar, Koinadhara, Bylane 15 PS Basistha Dist Kamrup (Metro) In exercise the powers conferred under sub section (1) of section 50 Cr. PC, I do hereby inform you that during the investigation of Basistha PS Case No: 621/2023 U/S 120(B)/302 IPC, R/W Section 25 (1) (a)/27 (1) (a) Arms Act. You are found involved into the case and so you are arrested in connection with the above noted case reference on 16/10/2023 at 10: 40 AM. As the offences charged are non bailable to police, you May take help of legal counselor at your choice. Signature of accused person Yours faithfully SI Dimbeswar Dahal of Basistha PS Dated:16/10/2023” 10. A perusal of the aforesaid notice, indicates that except reference of the provision of the Section of IPC and the Arms Act, no other information is provided in the said notice and also to refer to the arrest and inspection memo, which reads as here under:- ARREST AND INSPECTION MEMO 1. Case/GDE Reference: 621/2023 U/S 120(B)/302 IPC, R/W Section 25 (1) (a)/27 (1) (a) Arms Act. 2. Name & Address of arrested person: Miss Gitashree Sinha (29 Yrs) D/O Sri Ajit Sinha Of Uday Nagar, Koinadhara, Bylane 15 PS Basistha Dist Kamrup (Metro) 3. Date and time of arrest: On 16/10/2023 at 10:40 AM 4. Place of arrest: at Basistha PS Page No.# 5/6 5. Injuries observed if any: as per medical report 6. If being referred for Medical Treatment (Name of Doctor/ Hospital): As per medical requisition 7. Signature of relative/ Witness present at the time: of arrest/ inspection: 8. Signature of Arrested person 9. Signature of Arresting officer: SI Dimbeswar Dahal Basistha Police Station Dated: 16/10/2023” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid Arrest and Inspection Memo also indicates that except the case reference number, name and address of arrested person, date and time of arrest, no other information whatsoever as regards the alleged offence and the ground of such arrest is available in the said Arrest and Inspection Memo. That apart a close perusal of the materials available in the case diary further indicates that there is no materials whatsoever available in the case diary to indicate that the arresting authority has informed the petitioner the grounds of her arrest at the time of her arrest. That being so, it is clear that the arrest of the petitioner is totally illegal and is in violation of the constitutional and fundamental right to liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Hence, the arrest is totally vitiated. It is a settled law it is the duty of every court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the present case, the Page No.# 6/6 arrest being vitiated on account of violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner cannot be detained any longer in the custody in relation to the present case. 12. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is liable to be released forthwith upon bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that:- (i) The petitioners shall cooperate with the trial, (ii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial, and (iii) The petitioners shall not exercise threats to the witnesses or try to influence the witnesses. 13. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Jurisdictional Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 14. In terms of the above observation, bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant