Non-compliance with the mandatory constitutional requirement to communicate specific grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee vitiates the detention. Such breaches of fundamental rights override statutory restrictions, requiring the court to grant bail to uphold the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

ORDER :

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Assam.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, whereby the petitioner Mahbubul Hoque has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025.

3. On 21.02.2025, police lodged an FIR before Patharkandi Police Station with the below mentioned allegations –

i. On 21.02.2025, 274 students appeared at Central Public School, Patharkandi for writing the Physics Paper of 12^th Standard CBSE Examination. This Central Public School, Patharkandi is an institution run by E.R.D. Foundation based at Guwahati. This E.R.D. Foundation is run by USTM.

ii. Out of the aforesaid 274 students, 15 were from Adarsha Vidyalaya, Patharkandi and 45 of them are from Central Public School, Patharkandi. The remaining 214 students were enrolled in Central Public School, but they never attended any classes in that school. In fact, under the Vision 50 Programme, they were attending classes at USTM, Guwahati. This Vision 50 Programme was a special coaching programme run by USTM.

iii. It is alleged in the FIR that those 214 students had created law & order problem on the day of the examination. Their contention was that at the time of admission, they were promised that at the time of examination, the Invigilators would help them in writing the 12^th Standard Examination. But the 214 students did not get the promised help from the Invigilators.

iv. Out of the 214 students, some even did not know that they were students of Central Public School, Patharkandi. They only knew that they were students of USTM under the Vision 50 Programme.

v. The said 214 students, also contended that the Invigilators and Faculty Members had helped 45 local students of Patharkandi when those students adopted unfair means to write in the examination.

vi. Some students alleged that the USTM authority took Rs.5 Lakh from each of the aforesaid 45 students so that they can clear the paper.

4. The informant had alleged that the present petitioner being the head of USTM authority, cheated the students by making false promises.

5. Police registered a case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No.54/2025. The petitioner was arrested by police at Guwahati. His wife Shahida Rahman was served with a notice wherein it was mentioned that the Investigating Officer of the case has found sufficient material evidence against her husband and for that matter, he was arrested by police.

6. After arrest, the petitioner was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi, Assam. It was pleaded before the court below that at the time of arrest, the provision of law as contained in Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, was not complied with. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine 269 was also referred to by the petitioner. The learned court below had held that since the petitioner had filed the bail application before the court, it meant that the petitioner had full knowledge about the case.

7. In order to buttress his points, Mr. Bora has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254. Paragraphs 28, 29, 45 an