JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Pubic Prosecutor, Nagaland as well as Mr. A. Sophie, the learned counsel who represents the complainant. 2. Both the proceedings relate to the legality and validity of the arrest of the petitioner, and as such, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 3. The materials on record reveals that on 19.05.2024, an FIR was filed by one Thejavizo B. Misalhou before the Officer-In- Charge of the North Police Station, Kohima alleging inter-alia that an untoward incident happened on 18.05.2024 at Phoolbari Bus Stand/Taxi Stand opposite to Oking Hospital at around 4.40 PM. It was also alleged that the incident involved the petitioner and one Khrietsonyu Whuorie of Kohima Village which led to the hospitalization of the father of the complainant at ICU, Oking Hospital, and subsequently, he succumbed to his injuries on 19.05.2024 at around 3.25 AM. It was also alleged that the complainant was also assaulted by the said two persons. 4. On the basis of the FIR filed, a case was registered being North P.S. Case No.0045/2024 under Sections 352, 323, 325, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was registered after a General Diary Entry being made on 19.05.2024 at 11:30 hours. 5. Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Pubic Prosecutor, Nagaland has produced the case diary pursuant to the direction passed by this Court on 10.04.2025. From a perusal of the said case diary, it is seen that at 11:40 hours, the said case diary was opened by the Investigating Officer after being endorsed by the Officer-In- Charge of the North Police Station. In the Entry No.(I) of the said case dairy, the Investigating Officer recorded about the incident as well as the initial statement of the victim's son. It was also mentioned therein that after the registration of the FIR and the case being endorsed to the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer visited the Sechu Zubza Village at 12:20 hours wherein the house of the deceased was located and conducted certain legal formalities. For the purpose of the instant application what is important is the Entry No.(III) which was prepared at 15:30 hours wherein in the Synopsis Entry, it is mentioned as “ Prepared, Arrest & Seizure Memo”. For the purpose of the instant application what is important is the Entry No.(III) which was prepared at 15:30 hours wherein in the Synopsis Entry, it is mentioned as “ Prepared, Arrest & Seizure Memo”. In the said Entry, it is mentioned as follows: “ Now, prepare proper Arrest Memo of the two accused persons Neizosetuo Kire and Khrietsonyu Whuorie in presence of available witnesses and also intimation has been given to the relatives of the accused persons about the grounds of their arrest. (enclosed as Annex-)”. 6. It further reveals from the Entry No.(IV) that at 1540 hours, the Investigating Officer left for Wokha along with the two accused persons and the North P.S. personnel and the DEF personnel for Wokha P.S. for safety and security of the two accused persons and also to avoid law and order situation due to hue and cry from the public of the deceased village and range. 7. At this stage, this Court further finds it relevant to take note of the Arrest/the Court Surrender Form wherein it is mentioned in the column Date, Time and Place Of Arrest/Surrender as 19.05.2024, time 15:40 hours GD No.03/2024. It is further pertinent to mention Serial No.8 of the said Arrest/Court Surrender Form. This Entry being very pertinent is reproduced herein under: “ The arrested person, after being informed of the grounds of arrest and his legal rights was duly taken into custody on 19.05.2024 (date) at 15:40 (hours) at North PS (place): The following article(s) …………………. The arrested person was cautioned to keep himself/herself covered for purpose of identification. Intimation given to Shri/Smti. Neiphrietuo (relation) of uncle on (date) 19.05.2024 at (hrs) 20:00 hrs.” 8. This Court further finds it relevant that the reasons necessitating the arrest were informed to the petitioner as “ to prevent the accused persons from committing any further crime” . It is also relevant to take note of that on 20.05.2024, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wokha passed an order taking due notice that the petitioner along with another was arrested and produced before her in connection with Kohima North P.S. Case No.45/2024 which corresponds to GR Case No.83/2024 and the reasons why the said accused persons were produced at Wokha and not before any Judicial Magistrate under whom Kohima North P.S. is situated. The petitioner along with another vide the order dated 20.05.2024 was sent to 15 days of judicial custody. 9. The record further reveals that the Charge Sheet had been submitted in respect to GR Case No.83/2024 on 16.08.2024 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima and thereupon as the offence opined in the said Charge Sheet was under Sections 290/352/323/325/304/34 of the IPC, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kohima committed the said case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima before whom the said case being GR Case No.83/2024 is presently pending. 10. The record further reveals that a bail application was filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Sessions Judge, Kohima seeking bail on the ground that the arrest of the petitioner was illegal in as much as there was violation to Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) on the day on which the petitioner was arrested along with another. In other words, the challenge to the arrest of the petitioner is on the ground that no ground of arrest was intimated to the petitioner. 11. The said bail application which was registered and numbered as I.A.(Crl.) No.54/2025 was rejected vide the order dated 04.04.2025 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kohima (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’). It is under such circumstances, the petitioner initially filed the application by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which was registered and numbered as Crl. Revn.6/2025 and as a matter of abundant caution, the petitioner had also filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). 12. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the respective contentions of the parties. 13. Mr. S. Borgohain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that a reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution clearly stipulates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed as soon as may be of the grounds for arrest. He submitted that this Constitutional provision has been percolated to the Code in the form of Section 50 of the Code which is now Section 47 of the BNSS. He submitted that this Constitutional provision has been percolated to the Code in the form of Section 50 of the Code which is now Section 47 of the BNSS. He submitted that the grounds of arrest were never intimated to the petitioner, and as such, the arrest of the petitioner is illegal.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the arrest is illegal, the question of remanding the petitioner to the judicial custody which has been done from time to time is also illegal. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 ; Prabir Prukayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 as well as the recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269. 14. Per contra, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland submitted that the petitioner herein was duly informed about the grounds of arrest. He submitted that the information so given to the petitioner was given verbally. As regards the maintenance of contemporaneous records, he submitted that grounds of arrest were based upon the Entry No.(I) of the case diary which mentioned about the incident. Further to that he referring to the reasons of the arrest also submitted that the petitioner was informed that he was required to be arrested to prevent the petitioner from committing any further crime. He therefore submitted that the said was sufficient in terms with Section 50 of the Code read with Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The learned Public Prosecutor also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhury and Others vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2023) as SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court had observed that so long the person has been informed about the ground of arrest that is sufficient compliance of the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) wherein it is mentioned that there is no requirement that the grounds of arrest have to be in writing. He further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) wherein it is mentioned that there is no requirement that the grounds of arrest have to be in writing. It can be verbally also communicated. 15. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on records including the case diary which has been produced before this Court. 16. In the previous segments of the instant order, this Court in detail has referred to the Entries made in the case diary. The Entry No.(III) which has been quoted herein above only refers to preparation of a proper Arrest Memo of the two accused persons which includes the petitioner in presence of available witnesses. It also mentions that intimation has to be given to the relatives of the accused persons about the grounds of their arrest. The entries made in the case diary do not reflect that any ground of arrest was intimated to the petitioner. What is reflected is the relatives are to be intimated about the grounds of the arrest. 17. This Court has duly considered the submission of Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland to the effect that verbally the petitioner was intimidated about the grounds of arrest. This Court has duly perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) which particularly deals with what is required when the grounds of arrest are not in writing. It is very pertinent to mention that the Supreme Court had observed that the grounds of arrest in all circumstances should be in writing but in circumstances when it is not in writing, it is required that there should be contemporaneous records maintained in the entries made in the case diary about the formulation of the grounds of arrest. Paragraph Nos.15 & 18 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “15. We have already referred to what is held in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1. This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have to be formulated. This Court has suggested that the proper and ideal course of communicating the grounds of arrest is to provide grounds of arrest in writing. Obviously, before a police officer communicates the grounds of arrest, the grounds of arrest have to be formulated. Therefore, there is no harm if the grounds of arrest are communicated in writing. Although there is no requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing, what is stated in paragraphs 42 and 43 of the decision in the case of Pankaj Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non- compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22. 18. In the present case, 1st respondent relied upon an entry in the case diary allegedly made at 6.10 p.m. on 10th June 2024, which records that the appellant was arrested after informing him of the grounds of arrest. For the reasons which will follow hereafter, we are rejecting the argument made by the 1st respondent. If the police want to prove communication of the grounds of arrest only based on a diary entry, it is necessary to incorporate those grounds of arrest in the diary entry or any other document. The grounds of arrest must exist before the same are informed. Therefore, in a given case, even assuming that the case of the police regarding requirements of Article 22(1) of the constitution is to be accepted based on an entry in the case diary, there must be a contemporaneous record, which records what the grounds of arrest were. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.” 18. When an arrestee pleads before a Court that grounds of arrest were not communicated, the burden to prove the compliance of Article 22(1) is on the police.” 18. In the backdrop of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and applying the said to the facts of the instant case and more particularly to the entries made in the case diary which has been produced, there is nothing mentioned about formulation of the grounds of arrest on the basis of which the petitioner was intimated about the grounds of arrest. 19. Let this Court now take up the other submission of Mr. E. Thiba Phom, the learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland that the reasons of arrest were duly intimated to the accused persons in writing which was to the effect to prevent the accused persons from committing any further crime. In the opinion of this Court, the “reasons of arrest” and “grounds of arrest” are two completely different things and this very aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Prukayastha (supra) and more particularly at paragraph No.48 which is reproduced herein under:- “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. 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 equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.” 20. From a perusal of the above paragraph, it would be seen that the “reasons of arrest” cannot substitute the requirement of Section 50 of the Code as well as Article 22(1) of the Constitution in as much as the “grounds of arrest” are personal to the accused wherein the accused is being informed of all the basic facts on which he is being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. 21. Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the grounds of arrest were not intimated to the petitioner as is required under law. The verbal intimation to the petitioner as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland cannot be substantiated unless there is a formulation of the grounds of arrest in the contemporaneous records, which is however not available, as would appear from the case diary. 22. Considering the above, the arrest so made of the petitioner on 19.05.2024 at 15:40 hours has to be declared to be illegal. 23. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) wherein the Supreme Court observes that if the arrest is vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second. 24. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein is entitled to bail. Accordingly, this Court grants bail to the petitioner in GR Case No.83/2024 subject to the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one local surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave Kohima, Nagaland without prior intimation and permission of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave Kohima, Nagaland without prior intimation and permission of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence of the Case. The petitioner is further prohibited to contact the charge sheeted witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any of the witnesses so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iv) The petitioner shall forthwith surrender the passport, if any, to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. (v) The petitioner shall appear before the District and Sessions Judge, Kohima in connection with GR Case No.83/2024 pending before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima on each date as so fixed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. It is categorically directed that the petitioner shall only after taking due permission from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima, not appear before the said Court on a date as fixed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. (vi) The petitioner shall not cause any delay to the proceedings in GR Case No.83/2024 pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Kohima. (vii) In case of medical emergency, the learned counsel for the petitioner shall apprise the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kohima about such circumstances and it shall be within the jurisdiction of the District and Sessions Judge, Kohima to pass such orders as deemed fit. 25. With the above, the instant petition stands allowed with the direction to release the petitioner on the conditions as mentioned hereinabove. 26. The case diary so produced be returned.