Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010055792025 2025:GAU-AS:3999 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./810/2025 BABUL DEHINGIA S/O- SRI KHAGEN DEHINGIA R/O RANGURIA P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 03.04.2025 Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Simaluguri P. S. Case No. 24/2024, registered under Sections 384/506 of IPC read with Sections 10/13/17/18 of UA (P) Act, 1967. 3. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner is a businessman by profession and has business rivalries with many individuals, due to which his name has been implicated in this matter. He was never a member of the banned outfit ULFA(I), nor does he have any association with any member of the said banned organization. The petitioner was arrested merely on suspicion. Furthermore, he submits that the FIR lodged by the informant raises doubts regarding the alleged incident. It states that the informant received the letter demanding money on 26.05.2023; however, he lodged the FIR only on 02.10.2024. He also submits that the accused/petitioner has been in custody since 04.02.2025, and thus, the investigating officer (IO) got sufficient time for his custodial interrogation keeping him in the custody. 4. Mr. Ahmed, by filing an additional affidavit, further submitted that at the time of the petitioner’s arrest, the grounds of arrest was not mentioned in the Arrest Memo as well as Notice issued under Sections 47 of BNSS nor they communicated to his family members or relatives as required under Section 48 of BNSS. He contended that such Page No.# 3/8 non-compliance is a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as the disclosure of arrest grounds is mandatory under the law. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner was arrested on 04.02.2025, but due to non-mentioning of grounds in the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS., the arrest and the remand itself is illegal. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself and hence, without even going into the detail of the merit of the case, the present petitioner is entitled to bail. 5. In support of his submissions, Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 6. He further submitted that no grounds for arrest were mentioned in the arrest memo issued to the accused/petitioner, despite it being a mandatory requirement under Section 43B(1) of the UA(P) Act, which reads as follows: 1. Any officer arresting a person under section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. 7. Referring to Section 43B (1) of the UA (P) Act, Mr. Ahmed submits that the petitioner was not informed about the grounds of arrest by the arresting authority. In this regard, he also emphasized the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Case No. 1518/2025 [@SLP (Crl.) No. 1662/2025], Page No.# 4/8 wherein, it was held that the arrest memo cannot be construed as a ground for arrest. Accordingly, he highlighted the following paragraph, which reads as under: “ ……..We are inclined to consider only the last issue raised by the appellant with respect to the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest. Upon perusing annexure P-3, we can see that what has been provided to the appellant is only an arrest memo in the prescribed format, which is meant to be given to the appellant by way of an intimation. It has been filled up with the name of the appellant along with the place of arrest. Additionally, it has been written that he has been arrested based upon the statement of the co-accused. We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.” 8. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that during investigation, the I.O. collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner. He further submits that there is every possibility of absconding if he is released on bail and therefore, he submitted that this is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the accused/petitioner only considering the length of detention. He also submitted that there may not be any written communication for grounds of arrest, but from the materials available in the case record, it is very much evident that the accused was informed about the grounds of arrest orally during investigation and hence, he raised objection in granting bail to the accused/ petitioner. 9. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the annexures filed along with the petition, more particularly, the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS as well as the Arrest Memo. It is accordingly seen that while issuing the said Notice and the Arrest Memo, though the name and the address of the accused/petitioner along with the case number as well as the Sections under which he was arrested are being mentioned, but admittedly there is no mention about the grounds of arrest. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not Page No.# 5/8 intimated to the accused/petitioner or to his family members at the time of his arrest which is a statutory right of an accused and it is also a constitutional mandate that the person should be intimated regarding the grounds of arrest under which he was taken into custody of police. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that non-communication of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 47 of BNSS, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioner invalid. The accused/petitioner has the fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and copy of such written ground of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without any explanation. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested accused/ petitioner would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge- sheeted. 11. 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 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. Page No.# 6/8 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 590committed 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.” 12. 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 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 Page No.# 7/8 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.” 13. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no mention of grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS and except the name, address and the case numbers, there is no mention about any other particulars of the offence as well as the grounds of arrest. So, from the proviso of Section 47 of BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and, this Court is of the considered opinion that for the violation of the constitution 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 consider his bail application. 14. In view of the entire facts and circumstances as discussed above, viz-a-viz non- mentioning of grounds of arrest in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioner under Section 47 of BNSS, and also considering his length of detention, as well as the considering the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case laws referred to hereinabove, this Court find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to Page No.# 8/8 the accused/petitioner. 15. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, the accused/petitioner, namely, Babul Dehingia, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; (ii) 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; (iii) that the petitioner shall submit his Aadhar Card and PAN Card before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar; and (iv) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sivasagar, without prior permission. 16. 16. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant