The failure to timely communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused's family violates constitutional rights, thereby validating bail grant despite statutory restrictions.

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. 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