The failure to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution, which vitiates the arrest and renders the subsequent custodial detention illegal, necessitating immediate release.

ORDER :

MANASH RANJAN PATHAK, J.

Heard Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. K. Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Phukan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the State.

2. By this application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the petitioners, namely, (1) Bijoy Dutta, son of Krishna Dutta, resident of Village-Sarisha, Police Station-Karimganj, District-Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam, (2) Imdadur Rahman, son of late Fakar Uddin, resident of Village-Dighirpar, Police Station-Badarpur, District- Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam, (3) Numan Ahmed, son of late Khalilur Rahman, resident of Village-Dorali, Police Station- Badarpur, District- Sribhumi (Karimganj), Assam and (4) Rezzak Ali, son of Abdul Khalek, resident of Village-Mazarchar, Police Station-Aluoatichar, District-Barpeta, Assam are seeking bail in Patharkandi Police Station Case No.55/2025 corresponding to G.R. No.283/2025, registered under Sections 318(4)/316(5)/336(3)/111(4) BNS, 2023, read with Section 11 of the Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, in which, they were arrested on 22.02.2025 and are in custody since then.

3. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 22.02.2025 in Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 under Sections 16(1) (2)/318(4)/316(5)/336(3) of the BNS and a co-ordinate Bench by order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Bail Appln. No. 600/2025 released them on bail due to failure on the part of the police from Patharkandi police station to comply with the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, thereby violating the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that the facts stated in the FIR relating to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 and that of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 are same and has arisen out of the same incident, except that the facts in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 are more elaborate, where Section 11 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 has been added. Since the petitioners have already been released on bail in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025, therefore, they are also entitled for their bail in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 as the prosecution while arresting the petitioners in said Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023; did not specify the ground of their arrest in the said case, neither communicated to them about it, nor to their family members, relatives or others as required under the law and detained them in custody in violation of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Mr. Bora submitted that there cannot be registration of more than one FIR against the petitioners relating to the same incident, that too, in the same police station.

5. Placing both the FIRs relating to Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 as well as Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel stated that from the forwarding report pertaining to the FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 54/2025 it can be seen that the petitioners were arrested in the said case on 22.02.2025 at 03:00 P.M. and that in the said forwarding report dated 22.02.2025 the concerned Investigating Officer clearly indicated that another case being Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 had already been registered against the petitioners. From the FIR of Patharkandi P.S. Case No. 55/2025 Mr. Bora, place