ORDER

Heard learned counsel Mr. J.M. Gogoi for the petitioner Sri Bimal Basumatary, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 01.06.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 114/2024 under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon.

2. This case is based on Jagiroad Police Station Case No. 108/2024.

3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Parashar and learned Amicus Curiae Ms. T. Parashar for the respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the notice issued under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, marked as Annexure-2 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has affixed his thumb impression in the notice. The petitioner is a layman and even in the vakalatnama he has affixed his signature in Assamese. The petitioner could not follow the notice as the notice was in English and the grounds of arrest were not specifically mentioned. The petitioner could not follow the cases and the sections which were referred to. Thus, the petitioner’s right to personal liberty has been curtailed as he is behind bars on the basis of such discrepancies adopted in the investigation procedure. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1288 where it has been held that :-

“38. These above discussed principles embody the manifestation of the constitutional safeguard sought to be achieved in Article 22 of the Constitution of India which is that the arrested person must be well equipped with the information not only about his arrest but the reasons and grounds thereof prior to his production before the magistrate so as to enable him to effectively defend himself and oppose the police and judicial custody and even press for bail. The obligation to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is thus, not just a mere procedural formality, instead it flows from the fundamental right of personal liberty which sets the further course for protection from the oppressive restrictions imposed upon the free movement in the society of an arrestee during remand.

39. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of the constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional circumstances, instead it reads as “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest….”, it casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023).

40. The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of th