Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010064872025 2025:GAU-AS:4382 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./920/2025 RIJU KANTA PEGU AND ANR S/O- LATE KULU PEGU VILL-NO. 2 SESA MIRI P.O.BIHPURIA, P.S.BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-784161 2: RATNA KANTA PEGU S/O SRI MIPAK PEGU VILL-ATHAISGHORIA P.O.PULISUMONI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH PIN-784178 ASSAM CONTACT NO. 636043441 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P NEOG, MS. K SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 08.04.2025 Heard Mr. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, 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 Bokakhat P. S. Case No.141/2024, registered under Sections 61(2)/147/148/303(2)/317(2) of BNS read with Section 17 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and read with Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the accused/petitioners are no way involved in the alleged offence. However, they were arrested on 17.01.2025 in connection with this case and were shown arrested based on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that they have been in custody since last first week of November 2024 in connection with another case. He further submitted that there are no grounds to fulfill the requirements of Sections 17 and 18 of the UA(P) Act, and there is no mention in the FIR that they were involved in organized crime. Thus, he submits that considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioners, their prayer for regular bail may be considered at this stage. 4. He further submitted that, at the time of the petitioners arrest, the grounds for arrest were not mentioned in the Arrest Memo or the Notices issued to the petitioners, nor to their family members/relatives under Sections 47/48 of the BNSS, on the basis of which they were shown to have been arrested in connection with this case. He contended that such non-compliance constitutes a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of Page No.# 3/8 the Constitution of India, as the disclosure of arrest grounds is a mandatory legal requirement. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused should be communicated to them at the time of their arrest. Failure to do so would violate the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as statutory provisions, potentially vitiating the arrest itself. 5. In this context, Mr. Neog, learned Counsel for the petitioner, also 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. 8. Mr. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are shown arrested in the present case by the learned Trial Court based on the materials collected by the I.O available in the Case Diary during the investigation. Therefore, the issue of an Arrest Memo and Notice under Section 47/48 of the BNSS does not arise. He further submitted that, since the I.O. did not seek any police remand and the petitioners were interrogated in jail in connection with this case, there was no request for police remand before the learned Magistrate. Hence, the communication of the grounds for arrest or the issuance of a notice under Section 47/48 is not necessary. 9. He further submitted that the accused/petitioners are habitual offenders and are also connected to 2/3 other matters involving similar offences, such as illegal poaching. He further submitted that, based on the materials available in the case diary, one Naga person has been supplying arms to the present accused/petitioners in exchange for Rs. 30-40 lakhs, and these petitioners are involved in illegal rhino poaching. The IO has collected sufficient materials against the accused/petitioners, Page No.# 4/8 who are implicated in the alleged offence. Accordingly, he raised objections and submitted that this is not a fit case for granting bail at this stage. He further submitted that although there may not be any written communication regarding the grounds for arrest, the materials available in the case record clearly indicate that the accused were informed of the grounds for arrest orally during the investigation, and hence, he raised objections to granting bail to the accused/petitioner. 10. From the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, it is evident that the IO did not follow any procedure to inform the accused/petitioners of the grounds for their arrest, nor was any notice issued to them or their family members in connection with the arrest in the present case. Furthermore, based on the FIRs of both cases and the sections under which they were registered, it is clear that these are not similar offences under which the petitioners were shown to have been arrested. In the earlier cases, the charges were registered under Sections 61(2) (a)/329 of BNS read with Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act, added Section 111(3) of BNS [in connection with Gohpur P. S. Case No. 152/2024, whereas the present case is registered under Sections 61(2)/147/148/303(2)/317(2) of BNS read with Section 17 and 18 of the UA (P Act and read with Section 51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Thus, it is the admitted position that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the accused/petitioners or to their family members at the time of their 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. 11. It is the contention of the petitioners that non-communication of the grounds of arrest is in violation of Section 47/48 of BNSS, rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioners invalid. The accused/petitioners have 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 Page No.# 5/8 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. 12. 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 Nos. 19, 21 & 48 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. 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 Page No.# 6/8 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.” 13. 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 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 Page No.# 7/8 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.” 14. In the instant case also, as discussed above, it is seen that there is no mention of grounds of arrest in the Notice issued to the present accused/petitioners under Section 47/48 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 47/48 of BNSS, it is seen that there is clear violation of mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and in such cases. 15. From the submissions made by both sides and from the documents available in the case record, it is evident that no grounds for the arrest were communicated to the petitioners, which constitutes a violation of Articles 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, considering the fact that the grounds for arrest were neither communicated to the petitioners nor mentioned in the Notice issued to them under Section 47/48 of the BNSS, this Court finds it appropriate to grant the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioners. 16. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only each with 1 (one) surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Golaghat, the accused/petitioners, namely, Sri Riju Kanta Pegu and Sri Ratna Kanta Pegu, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: Page No.# 8/8 (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, Golaghat, without prior permission. 17. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant