Failure to communicate grounds of arrest as required under Article 22(1) invalidates the arrest and warrants bail.

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. 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 K