Gauhati High Court
Smt Priyanka Das vs The State Of Assam on 20 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010016642025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./468/2025
SMT PRIYANKA DAS
W/O- BIMAL KARMAKAR, R/O- BELTOLA, NEAR HIGH SCHOOL, P.S.-
BOKAJAN, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782480
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. B N GOGOI,
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
20.05.2025
1. Heard learned counsel, Dr. B.N. Gogoi for the petitioner - Smt. Priyanka
Das, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for
prayer of bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 06.04.2024 in connection
Page No.# 2/5
with Palashbari PS Case No. 128/2024 under Section 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act,
1985.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that an additional affidavit has
been filed in connection with this petition where it has been clearly reflected
through the additional affidavit that the grounds of arrest have not been
communicated to the petitioner in a manner understood by the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the petitioner is a 36 year old lady and is ailing. Further,
it is submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars for 1 (one) year 2 (two)
months and only one witness out of 10 enlisted witnesses have been examined
so far. Culmination of trial also appears to be remote. The co-accused, who is a
juvenile has already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner has further submitted
that her right to liberty has been curtailed as the grounds of arrest were not
communicated to her in a manner understood by her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported
in 2025 SCC online SC 269.
4. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Prabir
Purkayastha (supra) are extracted herein below:
"19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any
person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the
provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a
fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of
arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without
exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person
the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this
Page No.# 3/5
information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to
consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail.
Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India.
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 3 (2000) 8 SCC 590 committed at
the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody
remand to the accused.
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 equated
with the 'reasons of arrest' which are general in nature."
5. For ready reference, the relevant part of the judgment of Vihaan Kumar
(supra) is extracted herein below
"14. Thus, the requirement of informing the person arrested of the
grounds of arrest is not a formality but a mandatory constitutional
Page No.# 4/5
requirement. Article 22 is included in Part III of the Constitution under the
heading of Fundamental Rights. Thus, it is the fundamental right of every
person arrested and detained in custody to be informed of the grounds of
arrest as soon as possible. If the grounds of arrest are not informed as
soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the
fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will
also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty. The reason is that, as
provided in Article 21, no person can be deprived of his liberty except in
accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure
established by law also includes what is provided in Article 22(1).
Therefore, when a person is arrested without a warrant, and the grounds
of arrest are not informed to him, as soon as may be, after the arrest, it
will amount to a violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 as well. In a given case, if the mandate of Article 22 is not
followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also
violate fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21, and the
arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the
requirement of informing grounds of arrest as soon as may be after the
arrest, the arrest is vitiated. Once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the
person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second."
6. Heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, who has
raised objection stating that there are incriminating materials against the
petitioner and charge-sheet has already been laid against the petitioner. He
further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to bail considering the gravity
of the offence as the petitioner was apprehended while transporting 257 grams
of heroin. The petitioner was transporting commercial quantity of heroin.
7. I have considered the submissions at the bar and I have also scrutinized
the trial court records. I have relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar
(supra).
8. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that
Page No.# 5/5
bail may be granted to the petitioner.
9. Considering all aspects, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one local surety of like amount subject to
the satisfaction of the learned trial court under the conditions that;
(i) the petitioner shall refrain from such activities with
which he is alleged,
(ii) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to the
witnesses, and
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Court without prior permission.
10. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to
cancel the bail granted to the petitioner.
11. Send back the Case Diary.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
