SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2324

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
Kardak Ete, J.
Smti Sikha Saikia, Wife of Shri Dhan Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
The State of AP represented by the PP of AP – Respondent
BA 34 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: J Tsering, Logsang Yountan,Tsering Gyatso
For the Respondent: T. Ete, APP of AP

The failure of law enforcement to effectively communicate the specific grounds of arrest to an accused violates Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Such a breach vitiates the arrest, rendering the grant of bail mandatory, irrespective of statutory restrictions imposed by special legislation.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20

(C), 27(A) and 29 - Arrest and detention - Mandatory requirement of communicating grounds of arrest - Failure to provide specific reasons for arrest vitiates custody - Constitutional violation overrides statutory embargoes on bail. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 11)

(B) Bail - Personal Liberty - When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, the courts are empowered to release the accused regardless of statutory restrictions - The burden of proof lies upon the investigating agency to demonstrate compliance with constitutional safeguards regarding the effective communication of arrest grounds. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The spouse of the accused challenged the continued detention of the individual following an apprehension related to the alleged transport of prohibited substances. The arrest-cum-inspection documentation provided to the detainee was found deficient as it lacked the specific legal grounds for the detention. It was contended that this procedural omission breached constitutional protections and entitled the accused to immediate release.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the failure to communicate the specific charges or reasons for detention in a comprehensible manner at the time of arrest constitutes a fundamental flaw. This procedural non-compliance necessitates that the court prioritize constitutional liberty over statutory bars regarding bail.

Issues: Whether the failure to inform an arrestee of the specific grounds for their detention constitutes an irreparable breach of constitutional rights and whether such a breach permits the grant of bail notwithstanding statutory restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement for procedural transparency during an arrest is a mandatory constitutional mandate. A failure to communicate these grounds violates both the right to information and the right to personal liberty. Such a breach overrides statutory restrictions, empowering the court to order the release of the accused to protect the constitutional integrity of the criminal justice process.

Result: Bail allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual background leading to the bail application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. contentions regarding violation of article 22(1) and statutory bail conditions under ndps act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. failure to communicate grounds of arrest violates constitutional rights, warranting bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. bail granted due to constitutional breach regardless of ndps statutory restrictions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. J. Tsering, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant, praying for release of the accused, Shri Dhan Sharmah, in connection with Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985, who has been arrested on 10.01.2025.

3. An F.I.R. was filed on 10.01.2025 by ASI T. D. Goiba of Doimukh Police Station to the effect that at about 0930 hours, a reliable information was received regarding the movement of suspected smugglers transporting a significant quantity of cannabis, thereby reported that the smugglers were traveling from Kalaktang, West Kameng District, in 2 (two) vehicles, heading towards Doimukh via Kalaktang-Rupa-Seppa- Sagalee Road. Upon receiving the information, SDPO Doimukh Radhe Obing along with SI M. K. Rai, ASI T.D. Goiba (himself), SI Tage Saa, ASI M.A. Nur and the Police Station's ready party, immediately proceeded to the said road for interception. Accordingly, 2 (two) vehicles, namely, Maruti Ertiga bearing Registration No. AS-02AG-0992 and another Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A-8655 were successfully intercepted at Sopo Village. The Maruti Ertiga vehicle was found carrying 26 (twenty-six) white plastic bags of suspected cannabis (Ganja), weighing total 134.45 kilograms. The suspected Cannabis (Ganja) was seized from the driver in the presence of an Executive Magistrate and independent witnesses. The driver, was identified as one Shri Lakshan Basumatary, thereafter, he was taken into custody. The other vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-32A- 8655 was found to be serving as an escort for transporting of the suspected Cannabis (Ganja). The 3 (three) occupants including the present accused were apprehended. It was stated that all the aforementioned individuals were suspected to be involved in smuggling of cannabis (Ganja) and accordingly, the suspected cannabis (Ganja) were seized along with the vehicles.

4. On receipt of the above F.I.R, a case has been registered being Doimukh Police Station Case No. 04/2025 under Sections 20(C)/27(A)/29 of the NDPS, Act, 1985. The accused was arrested on 10.01.2025 in connection with the above Doimukh P.S. case.

5. The accused moved a bail application, before the Special Judge (NDPS), Yupia, however, the same was rejected on 28.01.2025 on the ground that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the main accused is yet to be arrested.

6. By filing the present bail application praying for grant of bail to the accused, namely, Shri Dhan Sharmah, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J. Tsering, submits that the ground of arrest of the accused has not been communicated as required to be done under the law. While referring to the Arrest-cum-Inspection Memo, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 in the bail application, he submits that there is nothing in the said Arrest Memo, which discloses the grounds of arrest, which is in clear violation of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the arrest of the accused person is illegal and accordingly, the accused is entitled to be released on bail even without surety. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 to project that to arrest a person, the provisions of the Act and the Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India has to be followe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top