ORDER : M. Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI for the appellant National Investigation Agency (NIA). Also heard Mr. N.J. Dutta, learned counsel for the accused respondent. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008, as the appellant is aggrieved with the final order dated 18.06.2025 issued by the learned Judge, Special Court, NIA, Assam, granting bail to the accused respondent in Bail Petition No.486/2025, in connection with R.C. 05/2024/NIA- Guw. The respondent accused was arrested by the NIA in connection with the attack on the IRB Post located at Ima Kondong Lairembi (KLP) Moreh, Tengnoupal District by suspected Kuki militants which resulted in the death of one security personnel. The accused respondent was arrested on 19.05.2025 at 3:30 a.m. in the Silchar Police Station, Cachar, Assam. 3. The accused respondent was arrested on the charges made in pursuance to Case No. R.C.05/2024/NIA-IMP under Section 121 , 121A, 302, 307, 325, 353, 400 and 34 of IPC. The accused respondent submitted an application for bail before the Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati on 23.05.2025. The Special Judge, NIA, Assam granted bail to the accused respondent on the ground that Section 48 BNSS had not been complied with, inasmuch as, the case records nowhere revealed the fact that the father of the accused respondent had been informed about the grounds of arrest of the accused respondent. 4. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Dy. SGI submits that on 19.05.2025, after the arrest of the accused respondent, a copy of the Arrest Memo and Grounds of Arrest was sent through e-mail from the NIA Control Room, Imphal to the e-mail of the S.P., Tengnoupal District, Manipur, i.e. tengnoupal@ manipur.gov.in for serving to the family members/relatives of the accused respondent. He submits that as per records, the communication regarding grounds of arrest had been received by the brother of the accused respondent on 20.05.2025 and the brother had acknowledged the receipt of the information regarding arrest and the grounds of arrest on 20.05.2025. The Chief Investigating Officer had also furnished a copy of the acknowledgement through WhatsApp on 10.06.2025 and the entry of the same was made in the Case Diary. Later the original acknowledgment was received by the Chief Investigating Officer from the S.P. Office of Tengnoupal District, Manipur. 5. The learned Dy. The Chief Investigating Officer had also furnished a copy of the acknowledgement through WhatsApp on 10.06.2025 and the entry of the same was made in the Case Diary. Later the original acknowledgment was received by the Chief Investigating Officer from the S.P. Office of Tengnoupal District, Manipur. 5. The learned Dy. SGI submits that in view of the fact that the grounds of arrest had been received by the brother of the accused respondent one day later i.e. on 20.05.2025, the reason of grant of bail by the Special Court, NIA, Assam to the accused respondent was bad in law and on facts, as delay in serving the grounds of arrest to the family of the arrested person cannot be fatal to the Prosecution case. As such, the bail granted to the accused respondent should be set aside, as Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the “UA(P) Act”) is a strict provision, which has to be applied vigorously. 6. In support of his submission, the learned Dy. SGI has relied upon paragraph 20.1 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos.3528 – 3534 of 2025), wherein it has been held at paragraph 20.1.5 that while Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The Supreme Court had held that mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that reading of various Supreme Court judgments prior to Sri Darshan (supra) i.e., Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 , Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 , requires the Arresting Authority to not only furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee, but also to the family members of the arrested person. This is also a mandatory requirement under Section 47 & 48 BNSS . 8. State of Haryana and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269 , requires the Arresting Authority to not only furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee, but also to the family members of the arrested person. This is also a mandatory requirement under Section 47 & 48 BNSS . 8. The learned counsel for the accused respondent further submits that for the first time the appellant has taken a stand that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the brother of the accused respondent. In the proceedings that were held before the Special Judge, NIA, Assam, the stand of the appellant was that the grounds of arrest had been informed to the father of the accused respondent and there was no whisper of the brother of the accused respondent being informed of the arrest of the accused person. He also submits that till date the appellant has not been able to produce any documents to show that the grounds of arrest had been communicated to the family members of the accused respondent. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. As can be seen from the records, bail had been granted by the Special Court, NIA, Assam to the accused respondent only on the ground of non-communication of the grounds of arrest in writing to the family members of the accused respondent and as such, bail was granted by the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam due to violation of Section 48 of the BNSS , 2023 and in view of the decision in Vihaan Kumar (supra). 11. No records had been produced before the learned Special Court to show that the grounds of arrest in writing had been communicated to the family members of the accused respondent. Further, the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam, in the impugned order dated 18.06.2025, had made the following observation : “Coming back to the facts of the present case, in the context of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar vs State of Haryana, this Court noticed that there is clear non-compliance of Section 48 of BNSS , 2023 by the Investigating Officer because the case diary nowhere reveals that any written communication has been made to the family members, relatives, friends and persons as may be disclosed or nominated by the accused person. However, the case diary reveals only intimation of the grounds of arrest to the SP, Tengnoupal District, Manipur. This does not imply that the mandate of Section 48 of BNSS has been duly complied with. In paragraph-21 (f) of Vihaan Kumar, the when a Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist. The statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the court to grant ball when the violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. In the present case, the learned P.P., NIA contended that there is full compliance of section 47 & 48 of BNSS , but on close scrutiny, this Court finds that there is no documents on record to show that section 48 of BNSS has been complied with which clearly shows non compliance of law as mandated by Hon'ble Supreme Court as it clearly violates Article 22 (1) and consequently, Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” 12. The above being said, it would be pertinent to note that in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), it has been held that the constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of arrest to the person arrested, in writing, has been explained in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be meaningful to serve the intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha (supra). The said constitutional mandate has been incorporated in the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC ( Section 47 of BNSS ). While the Hon’ble Supreme Court made a further observation with the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest to be purposeful to the friends and relatives of the arrested person, as required under Section 50 A Cr.P.C, in addition to the requirement under Section 50 (1) of the CrP.C, it also held that the requirement was to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal. The Supreme Court thus held that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue and to his relatives was not merely a formality to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest, but to also provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity, for actualizing the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 13. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) had held in paragraph-21(c) that when an arrested accused alleges non-compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1), the burden would always be on the Investigating Officer/Agency to prove compliance with the requirements of Article 22(1). 14. In the present case, the appellant has not been able to prove that they have complied with the requirement of Article 22(1), insofar as the communication of the grounds of arrest of the accused respondent had been communicated to his family members. 15. In Sri Darshan (supra) , the Supreme Court had negated the submission of the learned counsel for the accused respondent that an arrest would be illegal if the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately, thereby violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C, now Section 47 of the BNSS . However, in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the decision of the Supreme Court therein is to the effect that the grounds of arrest has to be in writing and has to be furnished to the relatives of the arrested person. Thus, there appears to be dichotomy of views in the different decisions of the Supreme Court. However, keeping in view the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar (supra). Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , wherein it was held that if there are conflicting decisions of equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision should be followed by the High Courts, we are bound to follow the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, which in this case would be Vihaan Kumar (supra). Thus, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) , we are of the view that the grounds of arrest in writing would have to be made known, not only to the arrested person, but also to the family/relative of the arrested person. 16. Keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. (Supra) , we are of the view that the non furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing, to the family/relatives of the arrested person immediately, cannot be said to be illegal or violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and section 47 of the BNSS . However, the grounds of arrest have to be furnished within a reasonable time. In the present case, the accused/respondent was arrested on 19/05/2025 and till the date of filing of the written objection by the appellant in Bail Application No. 486/2025 i.e. on 02/06/2025, the brother/relatives of the accused/respondent had not been provided a copy of the grounds of arrest. This delay of approximately 18 days, in our view, is beyond reasonable time, keeping in view the decision of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) . As such, the requirement of making the relatives of the accused/respondent aware of the grounds of arrest of an accused not having been made within a reasonable time, it can be said that the said delay could make the arrest illegal in terms of Vihaan Kumar (Supra) 17. We have perused the records that have been brought by the appellant. Though, there is signature in the photocopy of the Arrest Memo of the accused/respondent, which the appellant say, is the signature of the brother of the accused, we find that there is no date affixed to the said signature. On the other hand, all the other signatures in the Arrest Memo, which have been signed by the witnesses, the Arrestee and the Officer making the arrest, all have dates. On the other hand, all the other signatures in the Arrest Memo, which have been signed by the witnesses, the Arrestee and the Officer making the arrest, all have dates. There is nothing to prove that the grounds of arrest had been received by the brother of the accused respondent on 20.05.2025. In that view of the matter, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the brother of the appellant had been given a copy of the Arrest Memo on 20/05/2025 is not proved and the said submission does not inspire our confidence. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the appellant in their written objection to the Bail Application filed before the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam, had specifically taken a stand that the grounds of arrest of the accused/respondent had been given to the father of the accused/respondent. This stand has, however, been completely changed in the present appeal, which has been filed only on 02/06/2025. 18. Para 15 of the Bail Application submitted by the accused/respondent before the Hon’ble Special Judge, NIA, Assam, states as follows :- “15. That the petitioner begs to state that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in Pankaj Bansal -Vs- Union of India (Crl. Appeal No.3053-3054 of 2023), Vihan Kumar -Vs- State of Haryana and Anr. (2025) (SLP (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024) and in Prabir Pukayastha -Vs- State (NCT of Delhi), (D.No. 42896/2023), held that the grounds of arrest must be communicated, in writing, to the arrested person. It has further held that the communication to the relative or to the friend of the arrested person must also be made in writing. However, in the instant case, no such communication has been made to the relative or friend of the arrested accused person as mandated by Section 48 of the BNSS .” 19. The reply to para 15 of the Bail Application submitted before the Hon’ble Special Judge, NIA, the appellant herein at para 12 of the written objection on 02/06/2025, stated as follows :- “12. In reply to para 15, it is submitted that the father of accused namely Doujangam Mate was informed about his arrest. The accused himself signed the arrest memo after his arrest and he was told about the ground on which he was arrested. In reply to para 15, it is submitted that the father of accused namely Doujangam Mate was informed about his arrest. The accused himself signed the arrest memo after his arrest and he was told about the ground on which he was arrested. Therefore, all the necessary obligation on the part of investigating agency was duly complied with as mentioned in the Judgement cited in the Para.” 20. A perusal of the above two quoted paragraphs clearly shows that it was never the case of the appellant that the grounds of arrest of the accused/respondent had been served upon the brother of the accused /respondent at any time prior to 02/06/2025. As such, the turn-around in the stand taken by the appellant in this appeal cannot be accepted by us, especially when there is no date affixed to the alleged signature of the brother of the accused/respondent in the copy of the Arrest Memo of the accused/respondent. 21. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the decision of the learned Special Court, NIA, Assam, in granting bail to the accused/respondent. It may also be worthwhile to mention that in the records, there is nothing to show that the father of the accused/respondent had been given the grounds of arrest of the accused/respondent. 22. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.