Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1110 (GAU)

Shoma Das Wife of Shri Rajib Das v. State of AP

2025-06-24

SHAMIMA JAHAN

body2025
ORDER : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. T Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS, praying for grant of bail to the accused person who was arrest on 21.03.2025 in connection with the Palin P.S Case No. 1/2025 under Section 24(1) of the BNSS. The allegation against the accused person is reflected in the FIR dated 06.01.2025. In the FIR it is stated that on 9th September 2024 at around 6:00 pm, the accused person who was a JCB operator picked up the daughter of the informant from a shop in his vehicle and dropped her at a playground and when she was on her way back to her home, the accused persons who was waiting for her, offered to drop her at her house. The victim trusting him, went with him, however the accused person instead of taking her to the village where she resides, he took her towards some other place and on reaching near a river he stopped the vehicle in a isolated place and after stripping off her clothes, forcefully raped her in the jungle. It is also stated in the FIR that the accused person blackmailed her and warned her of dire consequences if she discloses the fact to anyone. The accused person had also videographed the incident and threatened her that he would make the said video viral. It is also stated in the FIR that the accused person threatened to commit suicide if she discloses the matter to her parents. Furthermore, it was stated that again on a subsequent date, the accused tried to rape her but she somehow was rescued by timely intervention on one village youth. She thereafter divulged the incident to her parents and the FIR was lodged by her father. On receipt of the said FIR, the police registered the case as Palin P.S Case No. 1/2025 under Section 64(1) of BNSS. 2. The police arrested the accused person on 21.03.2025 i.e. after almost one and half months of the lodging of the FIR. Thereafter, the police had furnished the arrest memo upon the accused person on 28.04.2025, which is annexed as Annexur-III with the petition. 3. The learned counsel Mr. 2. The police arrested the accused person on 21.03.2025 i.e. after almost one and half months of the lodging of the FIR. Thereafter, the police had furnished the arrest memo upon the accused person on 28.04.2025, which is annexed as Annexur-III with the petition. 3. The learned counsel Mr. S Hoque submits before this Court that the police by arresting the accused person did not furnish the accused the grounds of arrest as is required under the law. He stated that the reasons/grounds of arrest as mentioned in the arrest memo prepared on 28.04.2025 are not the proper grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 4. It is noticed that the only ground raised by the learned counsel for the accused person is the non-submission of grounds of arrest. He has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in AIR 2025 SC 1388 . He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashtha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 24 8 SCC 254, to substantiate his point. 5. On the other hand, Ms. T Jini, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits before this Court that the arrest memo contains the details of arrest and had also shown the reason/ground of arrest in the same. She submits that in the arrest memo, the case number, the provision under which the accused person is arrested, the time of arrest, the place of arrest as well as the information to the relatives of the accused person is provided for. She has placed reliance on a decision passed by the Supreme Court in Ashish Kakkar vs. UT of Chandigarh, reported in 2025 Supreme (OnLine)(SC) 2049. She also stated that in Vihaan Kumar (supra), the facts were different. In that case, grounds of arrest were neither given in writing nor it was orally communicated to the accused person but in the instant case, the arrest memo shows that vital information were given to the accused person. She also stated that the facts in the instant case are different and this is not a case where only a notice is served but enough materials information were given in the arrest memo. She also stated that the facts in the instant case are different and this is not a case where only a notice is served but enough materials information were given in the arrest memo. She further stated that in the instant case, the accused person was arrested much after the FIR was lodged and that he was absconding since the entire period. Thereafter, by tracking the accused person with the help of the call data records as well as by taking help of the Assam Police, the petitioner was arrested. As such, she states that this is an exceptional case wherein such endeavor was made to arrest the accused person, the requirement that immediately on arrest the accused person has to be served with the grounds for arrest was uncalled for, since the accused knew very well as to why he was arrested. 6. It is seen from the records of the case more specifically, the arrest memo which is annexed as Annexure-2 in the writ petition that although particulars of the offence were furnished to the accused person but the details which were in the hands of the I.O which necessitated the arrest of the accused or in other words, the basic facts on which the accused person was arrested and the requirement of informing him that he has an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and for seeking bail is not conveyed to the petitioner in the instant case. The reasons/ground of arrest which is mentioned in the arrest memo is reproduced as under:- 10. Reason/Grounds of Arrest a. Prevent accused from committing any further offence Yes b. For proper investigation of the offence Yes c. To prevent the Accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any matter Yes d. To prevent the accused person from making 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 the Police Officer. Yes e. As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured Addressed of the accused yet to verified. 7. It is seen from the above reasons/grounds of arrest that the details are not provided as to why he was arrested. Yes e. As unless such person is arrested, his presence in the court whenever required cannot be ensured Addressed of the accused yet to verified. 7. It is seen from the above reasons/grounds of arrest that the details are not provided as to why he was arrested. The information that were given in the said grounds of arrest are to prevent him from committing any further investigation/for proper investigation of this case/to prevent the accused person from tampering with the evidence or to prevent him from making any threat, inducement or promise etc. This cannot be contemplated as grounds of arrest as required by law. 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 for their arrest as soon as possible. Additionally, they have to be informed the right to consult with and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. Further, Section 47 of the BNSS 2023 similarly provides that 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. Further, in Section 48 of the BNSS it is mandated that Police upon making any arrest shall forthwith give the information regarding such arrest to the relatives, friends or such other person of the accused person. Although in the arrest memo it is written in Sl. No. 8 that arrest information has to be conveyed to one Dipankar Chakraborty, however, whether the information was conveyed to him or not is not clear from the records. Simply writing the name for communicating the information would not suffice under the law. 8. The Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered in Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 had observed that to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and statutory mandate, a copy of written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the accused person as a matter of course and without exception. Thereafter, the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashtha (supra) had categorically held that there is a big difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest. Thereafter, the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayashtha (supra) had categorically held that there is a big difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest. The reasons of arrest 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 from making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts etc. In the instant case, under the column of reasons/grounds of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo, these particulars are noticed and as such, the same cannot be held to be grounds of arrest. They are the reasons of arrest. It was further held in the said judgment that grounds of arrest should contain all the details of the basic facts which necessitated the police to arrest the accused person. 9. In Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Apex Court had categorically held that the grounds of arrest should be forthwith supplied to the accused person in written form. It was further held that 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. It was further observed that non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1) vitiates the arrest of the accused and if the arrest is vitiated, the Court will have no option but to release the arrested person. 10. In the instant case, as has been held earlier that no grounds of arrest consisting of the basic facts are imparted and communicated to the arrested person and that too in the language which he understands. The arrest memo contains only the provision under which the accused person was arrested, date and time of arrest, the name of the officer arresting the accused, the address and phone number of the person, to whom information about the arrest is to be given. The same contains reasons of arrests and not the grounds of arrest. Since the same has the effect of vitiating the arrest, this Court is left with no option to release the accused person on bail. The same contains reasons of arrests and not the grounds of arrest. Since the same has the effect of vitiating the arrest, this Court is left with no option to release the accused person on bail. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the arrest of the petitioner is illegal rendered on account of failure in communicating the grounds of arrest as mandated of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 11. In view of above findings, this application is allowed and the accused person may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties, one being a local inhabitant of the State of Arunachal Pradesh to the satisfaction of the CJM, Ziro, Arunachal Pradesh. The bail order is subjected to the following conditions. (1) The appellant should not leave the jurisdiction of the local JMC, Palin without the leave of the Court. (2) He will not hamper or tamper with the evidence or go near with the witnesses and he will appear before the Court as well as the I.O as and when called for. He will face the trial regularly. 12. Before parting with the records, this Court clarifies that the findings of this Court that arrest of the accused stands vitiated will not affect the merit of the pending case. 13. The Bail Application is disposed off.