Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010212982025 2026:GAU-AS:4310-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./433/2025 HEMKHOLAL MATE S/O - LT ONKHOLUN MATE R/O - K. MOULSANG VILLAGE, TENGNOUPAL, SUB-DIVISION - CHANDEL P.O. AND P.S. - MOREH DIST - MOREH, MANIPUR PIN - 795131 VERSUS THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY REPRESENTED BY SC, NIA Advocate for the Petitioner : Noorjaman Ahmed, MR A BASUMATARY,MR N AHMED,MR. N J DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NIA, Linked Case : Crl.A./345/2025 PHILIP KHAIKHOLAL KHONGSAI S/O - LT MARCUS KHONGSAI R/O - NEW MOREH WARD NO. 8 MANIPUR PIN - 795131 Page No.# 2/17 VERSUS NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI - 110003 2:TUSHAR BISHT INSPECTOR/CIO NIA G-1 TYPE VI OFFICER COLONY LAMPHEL IMPHAL WEST MANIPUR - 795004 ------------ Advocate for : MR BAPLU CHAKMA Advocate for : SC. NIA appearing for NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS Advocate for the appellants : Mr. N. J. Dutta, Ld Adv : Mr. S. Borgohain, Ld Adv Advocate for the respondents : Mr. R.K. D. Choudhury, Standing counsel, NIA Date on which judgment is reserved : 13.03.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/17 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) (Pranjal Das, J) These two criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2025, preferred by the appellants namely, Philip Khaikholal Khongsai and Hemkholal Mate, respectively, are being disposed of by this common Judgment and Order. 2. Both the criminal appeals have been filed against order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Learned Special Judge, NIA Court, Guwahati in Special NIA Case No. 5 of 2024, whereby petition No. 481 of 2025, preferred by the appellants seeking bail, was rejected. 3. It may be mentioned herein that, both the appellants were arrested on 29.01.2024 in connection with Moreh PS Case No. 1645 (10) of 2023 with regard to an incident of killing of SDPO, Moreh. At the time of their arrest, both the appellants were already in custody in another case and they were shown arrested in this case with the permission of the Court. 4. Subsequently, during the investigation of the aforesaid Moreh PS Case No. 1645 (10) of 2023, the Central Government directed the NIA (National Investigating Agency) to take over the investigation of the case and, accordingly, the NIA re-registered the case as RC-02/2024/NIA-IMP dated 09.02.2024 and upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was submitted under section 302/400/120B/121/122/34 IPC read with section Page No.# 4/17 16 of the UAP Act. It may also be mentioned herein that, vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a series of cases investigated by NIA and pending in the State of Manipur, including the present case, were transferred to the Court of Special Judge, NIA at Guwahati. Vide the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, the bail petition preferred by the two appellants before the Learned Trial Court was rejected, as already mentioned. 5. Before the Learned Trial Court also, the appellants had taken the ground of violation of Article 21/22(1) of the Constitution of India for not being properly informed of the grounds of arrest. However, the learned Trial Court did not accept the contentions of the accused persons in this regard and stated that from the arrest memos available in the case record, grounds of arrest have been mentioned in brief and that Serial No. 7 of the arrest memo reveals that the information about the arrest was given to the family members as well and was signed by the witnesses. 6. Before this Court also, in the appeal, the appellants have contended that at the time of their arrest, in this case on 29.01.2024, they were not furnished with the grounds of arrest as required under Section 50/50A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (as it existed then) and presently Section 47/48 BNSS. It is also contended that the arrest memo of the appellants was also defective, inasmuch as, it did not contain the signature of the arrestee. Page No.# 5/17 7. In support of these contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants have relied on the following decisions:- “(i) A. R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500; (ii) Kantaru Rajeevaru Vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association reported in (2000) 2 SCC 1; (iii) Roy V.D. Vs. State of Kerela reported in (2000) 8 SCC 590; (iv) Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1244; (v) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934; (vi) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269 (vii) Ahmed Mansoor and Ors Vs. State Rep. by Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2650. (viii) Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500. (ix) Jayanta Kumar Das Vs. Assam Board of Revenue reported in 1983 SCC Online Gau 127 (x) Thokchom Shyamjai Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2025 SCC Online Del 980 (xi) Sakib Choudhary Vs. the State of Assam in Bail Application No. 629/2025 “ Page No.# 6/17 8. The respondent/ NIA represented by the Learned Deputy SGI has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. Supporting the pleadings filed on behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Choudhury, the learned DSGI, submits and contends that, considering the penal provisions under which the chargesheet has been filed, the rigors of Section 43D (5) proviso UAPA would be applicable and therefore, there is also statutory bar with regard to grant of bail, and that the learned Trial Court rightly went into the merits of the matter and rejected the bail. 9. It is submitted and contended that the nature of the alleged offences are very serious, impinging on the security of the country and these aspects cannot be overlooked. It is also contended and submitted that the grounds on which the appellants were arrested have been conveyed to them and their family members, and that they were represented by learned counsels at different stages and that they had also preferred bail petitions upon being aware of the facts and circumstances of their arrest in this case. 10. We have perused the relevant materials, considered the rival submissions and perused the decisions cited at the bar. 11. Before proceeding further, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India may be reproduced herein below:- “22. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases (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.” Page No.# 7/17 12. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that grounds of arrest in reasonable detail and specific to the accused person have to be furnished to him at the time of his arrest and also furnished to his family members or nominated persons. The relevant paragraphs thereof may be reproduced herein below:- “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. 30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal(supra) laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected. 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 Page No.# 8/17 equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature. “ 13. Taking the law on the subject forward, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, has held that such grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the accused and his family members/nominated person in keeping with the provisions under Section 47/48 BNSS (earlier Section 50/50(A) CrPC, 1973). This is essential to fulfill the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. It has been held that in case of failure to comply with these requirements, the arrest of the person would be rendered fatally infirm and his continued detention untenable and that in such a situation, he would be entitled to get bail. It has also been held that once a person is found to be entitled to bail for violation of this arrest procedure, such right to bail shall prevail over any statutory restrictions on grant of bail. The relevant paragraphs of Vihaan Kumar (supra) may be reproduced herein below:- “26. Therefore, we conclude: 26.1. The requirement of informing a person arrested of grounds of arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1); 26.2. The information of the grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such that the object of the constitutional safeguard is achieved; 26.3.When arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden will always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1); 26.4. Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the Page No.# 9/17 fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused. Hence, further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated. Needless to add that it will not vitiate the investigation, charge sheet and trial. But, at the same time, filing of chargesheet will not validate a breach of constitutional mandate under Article 22(1); 26.5. When an arrested person is produced before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance with Article 22(1) and other mandatory safeguards has been made; and 26.6. When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) 13320 of 2024 Page 28 of 36 statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant bail when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established.” 42. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.” Page No.# 10/17 14. In the case of Anar Ali v. State of Assam in BA No. 8169/2025, this Court after referring to various decisions on this subject including Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra), was pleased to summarize the legal position in Para 22 which is reproduced herein below:- “22. Thus, from the aforesaid long line of decisions, it can be safely concluded that; I. Furnishing of the grounds of arrest is mandatory, and in the absence thereof, results in a violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. II. It is also firmly established that where there is a statutory prescription of the manner and method of furnishing such grounds, it should be scrupulously followed. III. However, when a specific form is not prescribed, insistence on written communication in every case is not a mandate. In such cases, substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. IV. It can also be safely concluded from the ratios laid down in the judgments cited above that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest is not an empty formality. Even if the arresting officer does not furnish written copy at the very moment of arrest, there must be contemporaneous record in the case diary/official register that the grounds were reduced into writing at the time of arrest and the same were read over/explained to the accused for the reason that such contemporaneous record serves as a judicially reviewable evidence of compliance of such mandate, when the arrestee alleges prejudice. V. Subsequent explanations or affidavits by the arresting officer may not cure such defects in the absence of a contemporaneous record, as the requirement of furnishing grounds for arrest, either in writing or orally, as the case may be, is mandatory and goes to the validity of the custody itself. “ 15. In the recent case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, the Hon’ble Apex court further developed the law on this subject and emphasized the mandatory requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest and summarized certain principles regarding the same. For ready Page No.# 11/17 reference, paragraphs 52, 53 and 66 may be reproduced herein below: “ 52. From the catena of decisions discussed above, the legal position which emerges is that the constitutional mandate provided in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India is not a mere procedural formality but a constitutional safeguard in the form of fundamental rights. The intent and purpose of the constitutional mandate is to prepare the arrested person to defend himself. If the provisions of Article 22(1) are read in a restrictive manner, its intended purpose of securing personal liberty would not be achieved rather curtailed and put to disuse. 53. The mode of communicating the grounds of arrest must be such that it effectively serves the intended purpose as envisioned under the Constitution of India which is to enable the arrested person to get legal counsel, oppose the remand and effectively defend himself by exercising his rights and safeguards as provided in law. The grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrestee in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of facts constituting grounds is imparted and communicated to the arrested person effectively in a language which he/she understands. The mode of communication ought to be such that it must achieve the intended purpose of the constitutional safeguard. The objective of the constitutional mandate would not be fulfilled by mere reading out the grounds to the arrested person, such an approach would be antithesis to the purpose of Article 22(1). 66. In conclusion, it is held that: 66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under IPC, 1860 (now BNS 2023); 66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; 66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” Page No.# 12/17 16. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the prosecution has been unable to show any notice under Section 50/50A CrPC given to the appellants at the time of their arrest on 29.01.2024. The prosecution has also not been able to show any notice under Section 50A CrPC pertaining to furnishing of grounds of arrest to family member of the arrested person or his nominated person. As far as the arrest memo is concerned, we find that the columns pertaining to signature of the arrestees is blank, though signatures of witnesses are available. 17. With regard to the grounds of arrest, it has been contended by the prosecution that the appellants were aware of the facts and circumstances of their arrest and hence, of the grounds, and this is proved by the fact that they had engaged learned counsels to represent them before the learned Trial Courts and that they had also filed bail applications. 18. We have perused the relevant portions of the case diary produced by the prosecution. We do not find any contemporaneous endorsements or noting in the case diary about furnishing of grounds of arrest to the accused/ arrestee and his family members/nominated persons at the time of their arrest on 29.01.2024. However, it is mentioned in the case diary with regard to the arrests that at the time of their arrests, the accused persons refused to put their signatures on the Arrest Memo. Further, it appears that the signatures of the witnesses were that of police officials of Moreh Police Station, though the accused petitioners were detained and arrested at Assam Rifles Page No.# 13/17 Camp which was located not at the same place. 19. It has been held in Vihaan Kumar (supra) in Para 31, that mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand application is not a substitute for furnishing the grounds of arrest to the accused because such information is for the perusal of the Remand Court. For ready reference, the said paragraph may be reproduced herein below: “31. A contention has been raised in the written argument that the grounds of arrest were incorporated in the remand report. This contention has been raised for the first time in written submissions before this Court. This is not pleaded in the reply filed before the High Court and this Court. The police submit a remand report before the learned Magistrate for seeking remand without serving a copy thereof to the arrestee. The reason is that the Police cannot divulge the details of the investigation to the accused till the final report is filed. Mentioning the grounds of arrest in the remand report is no compliance with the requirement of informing the arrestee of the grounds of arrest.” 20. It follows from these principles that the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) requires the grounds of arrest to be furnished to the arrested person and his relatives/nominated person. In our considered opinion, merely because the arrested accused persons choose to be represented by lawyers and prefer bail applications, that would not substitute for lack of or gross inadequacy in furnishing grounds of arrest. 21. Upon perusing the relevant materials as indicated above, and in the backdrop of the discussion in the preceding paragraphs – we come to the considered opinion that at the time of arrest of the petitioners on 29.01.2024, the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest under Section 50/50A Code of Page No.# 14/17 Criminal Procedure, 1973 were violated and therefore, the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India was not fulfilled in terms of the laws laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra), amongst others. 22. Accordingly, despite the serious nature of the offences and the concerns in this regard pointed out by the prosecution – the continued under trial detention of the petitioners has become untenable in terms of the aforesaid laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, they are required to be granted bail, subject, of course to suitable conditions. 23. Thus, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025, passed by the Learned Special Judge, NIA Court, Guwahati in Special NIA Case No. 5 of 2024, whereby petition No. 481 of 2025, preferred by the appellants seeking bail was rejected – is hereby set aside. 24. The accused petitioners are therefore allowed to go on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each with 2 (two) sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the concerned learned Court. (Special Judge, NIA, Guwahati), and subject to the following conditions that:- (i) they shall not abscond; (ii) they shall be available for the remaining trial; (iii) they shall not hamper or tamper with the evidence; (iv) they shall not threaten or influence any witnesses; (v) they shall not misuse their liberty to commit any illegal Page No.# 15/17 activities or offences. 25. In case of violation of any or more bail conditions, their bail would be liable to be cancelled. 26. Return the case diary. 27. The criminal appeals stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Concurring opinion: (per Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. I have the privilege of reading the judgment and order rendered by brother Pranjal Das, J. 2. I am in complete agreement with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother and write this separate opinion only to underscore that the present case exemplifies a deeper constitutional concern: the erosion of procedural safeguards at the stage of arrest, which constitute the first and most critical check against arbitrary state power. 3. The records reveals not a solitary lapse, but a continued defects; absence of a duly signed arrest memo in terms of section 41B, Cr.P.C, lack of contemporaneous material suggesting denial of the accused persons to sign such arrest memo, lack of demonstrable communication of the grounds of arrest as mandated by law and explicated in Vihan Kumar, non- compliance with section 50A Cr.P.C, and a failure to adhere even Page No.# 16/17 to judicial directions requiring supply of materials to defence. 4. Such safeguards are not ornamental. They are integral to the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21; their dilution transforms the process of arrest from a regulated act to an assertion of authority. 5. Equally, the argument that no prejudice has been caused cannot be countenanced in the context of my learned brother's findings. 6. Prejudice in the case like the present one inheres in the very denial of safeguards, i.e. the inability of the accused to effectively know, challenge and respond to the grounds of his arrest at its inception. The appearance of the counsel at the time of remand and in the absence of handing over the required materials/ lack of information required, itself is a prejudice for the inability of the accused persons to effectively know, challenge and respond to the grounds of their arrest. 7. To insist upon a further demonstration of prejudice is to misunderstand the nature of the right itself. It is important, in this context, to record that liberty cannot be conditioned upon post facto justification. 8. When the constitution and the statute prescribe the manner in which a person may be deprived of liberty, that mandate is absolute. Any infraction is not a matter of irregularity; it is a constitutional breach, and the courts are duty-bound to remedy it. 9. In the aforesaid context, the appellants are entitled to bail as Page No.# 17/17 recorded by the Learned Brother in his opinion. JUDGE Comparing Assistant