Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040008522026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/52/2026 Tagiam Hina Son of Tapu Hina, resident of Airport Colony, PO and PS Daporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented by the PP of AP 2:X Age: 0 Occupation : represented by her father namely Shri Dongra Gyadu resident of Sigin Part III Colony PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Loma Kurdu, Yombom Nasi Tamin,Take Kyamdo,Kolin Dagium,Jambey Tsering Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Tana Anmol BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 17.06.2026 Heard Mr. Loma Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Token Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and Ms. T. Anmol, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioner who is stated to be the father of the accused viz. Giamto Page No.# 2/8 Hina, has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying for grant of regular bail to the above-noted accused who has been arrested in connection with Daporijo P.S. Case No. 26/2026 registered under Sections 65(1)/74/85/115(2)/127(2)/137(2)/ 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Section 9/10 of the PCM Act, 2006. 3. At the outset, Mr. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in this bail application, the petitioner is seeking bail of the accused on the ground that the grounds of arrest were not mentioned while furnishing the arrest memo or issuing the notice under Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which is a mandatory requirement. The learned counsel further submits that although the notice under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was provided to the father of the accused, however, the same did not contain the details of the grounds of arrest of the accused. 4. Mr. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that such non-compliance of the mandatory requirement, amounts to violation of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He, accordingly, contends that all full particulars of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused must be communicated to the accused or to his family members at the time of arrest; failure to do so, is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution as well as the statutory provisions, thereby vitiating the arrest itself. 5. In support of the contention, Mr. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Page No.# 3/8 (i). Prabir Purkayastha v. State(NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 Supreme (SC) 463, wherein, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non- compliance with the constitutional mandate to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest vitiates the arrest itself. (ii). Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & anr., reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 283, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the right under Article 22 (1) is a fundamental right and its violation invalidates the arrest and the consequential remand. (iii). Riyajul Sarkar v. The State of Assam & anr. in B.A. No. 740/2020 decided on 24.04.2025, particularly, in paragraph No. 15, wherein, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court found it to be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/applicant as the grounds of the arrest were neither communicated to the accused nor to his family members/ relatives or mentioned in Arrest Memo. 6. Mr. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner, has further relied on the decision rendered by this Court in B.A. Case No. 74/2025(Gome Ligo v. State of A.P & Ors.), wherein, the accused was granted bail on the ground of violation of constitutional safeguards. He submits that where there is a violation of the constitutional mandate under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, statutory restrictions cannot curtail the power of the Court to grant bail in such circumstances. 7. Mr. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that non-mentioning of the grounds of arrest while issuing the arrest memo, or, the notice under Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, itself Page No.# 4/8 amounts to violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, even without entering into the merits of the case, the present accused, according to him, is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Mr. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, fairly submits that in the case of Gome Ligo(supra), this Court has observed that the police, in most cases, have failed to document the requirement as per the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 35(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court had even directed the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to take necessary steps in this regard and to initiate departmental action against the arresting officer for failure to record and document the grounds of arrest in accordance with Section 35(1) (b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and as per the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that a copy of the said order was directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district and was also forwarded to the Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police(Crime) for circulation among all the police stations in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 9. Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, further submits that after passing of such observations and directions by this Court, although some of the Police Stations have started recording the grounds of the arrest of the accused, however, in many of the Police Stations in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the police have failed to document the procedural requirements in accordance with law. Thus, he submits that even if the accused was orally informed, the failure to document such a critical procedural requirement, constitutes a violation of the fundamental right. Page No.# 5/8 10. Ms. Anmol, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, also fairly submits that although the grounds of arrest was verbally communicated to the accused and his family members, however, the same was not furnished in writing as required under the law. 11. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and considered the materials placed on record. 12. Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, mandates that no person who is arrested, shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds of such arrest. Sections 47/48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, similarly provides that the arresting officer shall inform the person arrested of the full particulars of the offences for which he has been arrested or the other grounds for such arrest. 13. Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read, as under: “Section 47: Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and of right to bail. (1) Every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. (2) Where a police officer arrests without warrant any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence, he shall inform the person arrested that he is entitled to be released on bail and that he may arrange for sureties on his behalf. Section 48: Obligation of person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc. to relative or friend. (1) Every police officer or other person making any arrest under this Sanhita shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest and place where the arrested person is being held to any of his relatives, friends or such other persons as may be disclosed or mentioned by the arrested person for the purpose of giving such information and also to the designated police officer in the district. Page No.# 6/8 (2) The police officer shall inform the arrested person of his rights under sub-section (1) as soon as he is brought to the police station. (3) An entry of the fact as to who has been informed of the arrest of such person shall be made in a book to be kept in the police station in such form as the State Government may, by rules, provide. (4) It shall be the duty of the Magistrate before whom such arrested person is produced, to satisfy himself that the requirements of sub- section (2) and sub-section (3) have been complied with in respect of such arrested person.” 14. In the present case, a bare perusal of the case record including the arrest memo reveals that no written acknowledgement or recording of the grounds of his arrest, was provided or explained to the accused person. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar(supra), as well as this Court in the case of Riyajul Sarkar(supra), has clarified that non-compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, renders the arrest of the accused, unconstitutional and illegal. The consequences of such illegality cannot be brushed aside lightly. 16. In light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application not on the merits of the case, but, solely on the ground of violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of the accused person at the time of his arrest. 17. Accordingly, the present accused, namely, Shri Giamto Hina, is directed to be released on bail, subject to the following stringent conditions to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the trial of the case: (i). The accused shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo; Page No.# 7/8 (ii). The accused shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for investigation and trial as and when required; (iii). The accused 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer, nor, shall he tamper with the evidence; (iv). The accused shall not try to visit and meet the victim or her parents during the pendency of the case; and (v). The accused shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daporijo, without prior permission. 18. Any violation of the above conditions shall entail immediate cancellation of the bail. 19. As submitted by Mr. Ete, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh, it has been observed that despite repeated observations and directions issued by this Court, time and again, the police have failed to document the ground of arrest of the accused as per the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 20. Under the circumstances, this Court, while reiterating its earlier observations, directs the Superintendent of Police, Daporijo, to take necessary steps in this regard and to initiate departmental action, if deemed appropriate, against the arresting officer for his failure to record and document the grounds of arrest of the accused in accordance with Sections 47 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Page No.# 8/8 21. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Daporijo, for necessary action. 22. With the above, the bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant