2025 Supreme(Gau) 2336

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kaushik Goswami, J.
Azibur Rahman @ Aziz @ Ajibur, S/o- Faizul Hoque - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Bail Application No.624 of 2025
Decided On : 02-05-2025

The constitutional mandate to communicate the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right. Failure to inform an arrestee of the reasons for their detention vitiates the arrest process and entitles the accused to bail, overriding any existing statutory restrictions on the grant of bail.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 21 and 22(1) - Criminal Procedure - Right to be informed of grounds of arrest - Mandatory constitutional requirement - Communication of grounds of arrest is a fundamental right and not a mere formality - Failure to impart sufficient knowledge of basic facts constituting grounds of arrest to the arrestee vitiates the arrest process and any subsequent judicial remand orders. (Paras 12, 13, 23)

(B) Bail - Statutory restrictions in special laws - When a violation of fundamental rights is established, statutory restrictions on the grant of bail do not affect the power of the Court to order the release of an accused - Once an arrest is held unconstitutional due to the violation of the constitutional mandate, the arrest itself is vitiated, necessitating immediate release. (Paras 22, 24, 31)

(C) Burden of Proof - In allegations of non-compliance with constitutional safeguards regarding arrest, the burden lies on the prosecuting or investigating agency to prove that the grounds were duly communicated to the accused in a language they understand. (Para 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought regular bail for the third time in a pending criminal trial. The petitioner contended that the arresting authorities failed to inform them of the grounds of arrest at the time of detention, causing a gross violation of fundamental rights. The state argued that the discovery of contraband articles implied the petitioner's awareness of the charges, and that the prosecution had produced multiple witnesses, justifying continued custody.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the records were devoid of any evidence indicating that the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest were ever communicated to the petitioner. It was held that an inference of knowledge based on the recovery of illegal materials cannot circumvent the mandatory constitutional requirement to inform an arrestee of the reasons for their detention. The court emphasized that the failure to satisfy this mandatory constitutional safeguard renders the arrest illegal, thereby overriding statutory bars to bail.

Issues: Whether the failure of investigating authorities to inform an arrestee of the grounds of arrest constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, and whether such violation entitles the accused to bail despite statutory restrictions under special laws.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest is a non-negotiable constitutional mandate. Any violation of this right vitiates the arrest and subsequent detention, as the personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be curtailed without adherence to the due process established by law. When such constitutional breaches occur, the procedural protection afforded to the accused prevails over statutory limitations on granting release.

Result: Bail application allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing bond and sureties, subject to specific conditions.