ORDER :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Kaushik, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam.

2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sakib Choudhury, who has been detained behind the bars since 19.01.2025 in connection with Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 14/2025.

3. The gist of accusation against the present petitioner is that on 18.01.2025, one Mr. T Pegu, S. I. of Police, lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mangaldai Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that an information was received regarding a gang of financial fraudsters taking shelter at K.P Residency, Mangaldai. Accordingly, a search was made and 4 (four) numbers of accused persons, including the present petitioner, were arrested therefrom. During the interrogation of the said accused persons, it was revealed that the accused persons were involved in financial fraud of bank accounts and they are operating all over India.

4. This is for the second time the petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail in connection with Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 14/2025. On an earlier occasion, his bail application was rejected by this Court by order dated 27.02.2025, passed in Bail Application No. 348/2025, after perusal of the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an order of rejection of bail on an earlier occasion does not preclude this Court from considering the bail for the second time on some different considerations and if some separate grounds are taken for seeking bail. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of UP” reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579

6. Mr. B. K. Mahajan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this time the petitioner is praying for bail on the ground that at the time of his arrest, his constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India as well as statutory rights guaranteed under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 were violated and therefore, the arrest itself got vitiated and on that ground alone he is entitled to get bail.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the constitutional right of the petitioner under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India to be informed about the grounds of his arrest as soon as he was arrested in connection with this case.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the constitutional duty of the arresting authority to inform the arrestee about the grounds of arrest which includes full particulars of an offence which is alleged against the petitioner as well as all such details in the hands of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner. He submits that mere informing the petitioner about the case number and the penal provisions involved in the said case is not the compliance of the constitutional provision under Article 22(1) as well as statutory provision of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated in this case, while arresting the present petitioner, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the petitioner on bail, as in such a case the arrest gets vitiated due to violation of the constitutional mandate of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the notice served upon the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, the only information provided was the case number of the police station case, in which arrest has been made, that is, the Mangaldai P.S. Case No. 14/2025 and the penal provisions involved in the case, that is, under Sections 318(