Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020001112026 2026:GAU-NL:116 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./3/2026 AEJAZ SALEEM SHAIKH ALIAS AJAZ SALIMBHAI SHEKH S/O SALEEM AZEESAB SHAIKH, R/O 701, BARCHI AVENUE, NEW PECCHA PETH, NORTH SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA. VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : T. KHEZHIE, N KERETSU,THEJA VITSU,ROVIMENO THOU,ALEZO KIRE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 13.03.2026 The instant application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner/accused person, Shri Aejaz Saleem Shaikh Alias Ajaz Salimbhai Shekh, praying for his release on bail in connection with GR No. 153/2024 corresponding to State Crime Police Station, PHQ Kohima Case No. 0003/2024 under Sections 111(3), (4) and (6)/318(2), (3) and (4) of Page No.# 2/6 the BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. T. Khezhie as well as learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. E. Thiba Phom. 3. The main ground taken by the petitioner/accused herein is that the accused was arrested in connection with the aforementioned case on 17.01.2026 and he is in custody till date for a total of 55 days. It is stated that the accused had been arrested in connection with another case and was in custody at Jamnagar District Jail, Gujarat. While he was in custody in connection with another case at Jamnagar District Jail, Gujarat, the accused was shown arrested on 17.01.2026 and was brought before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima basing on the transit remand granted by the 2nd Class Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamnagar for a period of 7 days with effect from 17.01.2026. He was then produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima on 20.01.2026 and eventually remanded to judicial custody on 27.01.2026. 4. It is stated that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner as the allegations are false and baseless and based on suspicion without any direct nexus or any evidence attributable to him and that the petitioner’s name is also not mentioned in the FIR, which was initially lodged on 24.10.2024. 6. It is also stated that the mandatory requirement of furnishing Grounds of Arrest in writing to a relative or a friend and obtaining acknowledgement thereof has not been complied with. Although the relevant column in the Arrest Memo indicates that the Grounds of Arrest Page No.# 3/6 was intimated to the wife of the petitioner and his counsel. However, no relative, neither his wife, nor his counsel was furnished a written copy of the Grounds of Arrest. It is stated that it was only on 22.01.2026 a WhatsApp message containing the Grounds of Arrest was sent to the petitioner’s mother on her mobile No. 9850 655 014. 7. Another ground which the petitioner has taken is that he is a high- risk diabetic patient and has been on regular insulin for the past several months and that despite regular medication his HBa1c levels remain alarmingly high at 9.7 whereas the normal range ought to have been 4- 6.4%. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. T. Khezhie relying on the case of Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5SCC 799 and Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2026) 1SCC 500 has impressed upon this Court that the requirement of furnishing the Grounds of Arrest to the relatives or the friends of the arrested person is mandated under the law. The learned counsel has stated that if the Grounds of Arrest are not furnished to the arrestee and his relatives in writing, such non compliance will result in breach of the constitutional and statutory safeguards rendering the arrest and remand illegal and the arrested person would be entitled to be set at liberty. Relying on the aforementioned authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel submits that non supply of the Grounds of Arrest in writing to the arrestee prior or immediately after arrest would not vitiate the arrest on the grounds of non compliance to the provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS provided that the said grounds are supplied in writing within a reasonable Page No.# 4/6 time and in any case 2 hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. Learned counsel submits that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 17.01.2026, whereas the Grounds of Arrest were furnished to the mother of the petitioner only on 22.01.2026 as indicated by the extract from the WhatsApp messages received by the mother on her phone. Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the delay of 5 days in serving the Grounds of Arrest to the relative of the accused person is in contravention of Section 48 of the BNSS. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused person may be released on bail at this stage as there has been a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. E. Thiba Phom has produced the Case Diary and has taken this Court to the entries in the Case Diary wherein it is stated that after the accused was shown arrested, a copy of the Rights of Arrest/ Grounds of Arrest was handed over to the advocate of the accused at Jamnagar Court and further forwarded to the mother of the accused through WhatsApp since no relatives or representatives were present at Jamnagar. Learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the mandate of Section 48, BNSS has been complied with and the ground put forward by the petitioner is not factually correct. As far as the medical condition of the accused person is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the Court can constitute a medical board to ascertain the seriousness of his medical condition and pass necessary orders. 10. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels for Page No.# 5/6 the parties and has perused the Case Diary as well as the pleadings and the enclosures in the petition. The Investigating Officer has written in the Case Diary that a copy of the Rights of Arrest/ Grounds of Arrest was handed over to the advocate of the accused at Jamnagar Court and that the grounds were also furnished to the mother of the accused through WhatsApp since they were not residents of Jamnagar. This Court has further gone through the format of the Grounds of Arrest, which is annexed in the petition. It is seen that the acknowledgement of the accused person regarding the receipt of the Grounds of Arrest is present in the format by annexing his signature. However, as far as the intimation to the family/relatives/friends is concerned, there is an entry that it has been served to the advocate and the wife of the accused person. However, there is nothing to show from the record that the Grounds of Arrest was intimated in writing to the wife or counsel of the accused person, which is a mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the format does not show any signature/acknowledgement by the wife or the counsel of the accused person. The WhatsApp message, which was sent to the mother of the accused person was also received only on 22.01.2026 which cannot be said to be a prompt action on the part of the arresting authority. In the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Grounds of Arrest in writing to the arrestee or the relatives in compliance of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS has to be supplied within a reasonable time and in any case 2 hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the magistrate for remand proceedings. This period would ensure that the arrestee or his counsel has adequate time to scrutinize the basis of arrest and gather relevant Page No.# 6/6 material to defend the arrestee proficiently and capably while opposing the remand. It is, therefore, a requirement of law that such Grounds of Arrest in writing have to be acknowledged and signed by the wife/relative/counsel and the same has to be on record. This Court has not been able to find any such receipt on the Grounds of Arrest format from the wife or the counsel or the arrested person. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the requirement of Section 48, BNSS has not been complied with in the present case. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 11. The accused, Mr. Aejaz Saleem Shaikh Alias Ajaz Salimbhai Shekh is released on bail on the following terms and conditions: (i) Execution of bail bond of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. (ii) The accused shall not hamper the investigation or try to influence the witnesses directly or indirectly and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when summoned. 12. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant