Gauhati High Court
Hiranya Thakuria vs The State Of Assam on 13 June, 2025
Author: Malasri Nandi
Bench: Malasri Nandi
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010098592025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1533/2025
HIRANYA THAKURIA
S/O VILL- MOKHONIA
P.O. BOROMBOI
P.S. HOJAI
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM
PIN-781104
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, Q. KIBA,A SAHA,MS S BEGUM
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 13-06-2025
Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Page No.# 2/15
2. By filing this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, the
petitioner, namely, Hiranya Thakuria, has sought for bail in connection with
NDPS Case No. 31/2024(corresponding to North Guwahati P.S. Case
No. 151/2023) under Sections 279/338/34 of IPC r/w Section
21(C)/29 of NDPS Act and Section 25(1-A)/27/35 of Arms Act, pending
in the court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Amingaon.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 03.12.2023, police received an
information about a commercial quantity of narcotics being transported in a
Swift car bearing Regd. No. AS-01-FQ-8535 from Hajo to Amingaon.
Accordingly, the police personnel upon locating the vehicle near Judicial
Academy, Amingaon, the occupants fired at the police, injuring two officers and
attempted to flee but after a chase, the accused/petitioner was apprehended.
One of the accused Salam was declared brought dead by the Doctor. During
search, a factory-made pistol, ammunition and 30 soap boxes containing heroin
were recovered from the said vehicle. Thereafter, a case was registered against
the petitioner and other co-accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
was arrested on 02.01.2024 and since then he has been detained in custody.
The prosecution has cited 37(Thirty Seven) witnesses in the charge sheet and
charge was framed on 06.03.2025. However, no any witness has been examined
till date.
5. The main thrust of argument for the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that no grounds of arrest was communicated to the petitioner in the notice
served upon him U/S 50 Cr.P.C. (U/S 47 BNSS) as well as no notice was served
to his representatives U/S 50(A) Cr.P.C (U/S 48 BNSS) which are mandatory in
Page No.# 3/15
nature, which resulted in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 21/22 of the Constitution of India.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on the following case laws-
(i) Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC
Online SC 269.
(ii) Prabir Purkayastha vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), reported in
(2024) 8 SCC 254.
6. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said guidelines of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has not been followed in the instant case. Hence, due to
such irregularities made by the investigating agency during investigation, the
accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, Mr. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that the
alleged contraband item was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As
such, Section 37 of the NDPS Act will come into play.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor by relying on para No. 28 of the case
of Kasireddy Upender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.,
reported in SLP(CRL.) No. 5691 of 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that “for the purpose of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the
authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should
be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been
arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be
somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case.”
Page No.# 4/15
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also referred the case of Ram
Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2023) 16
S.C.R. 743, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “a s discernible from the
judgment in Pankaj Bansal case also noticing the inconsistent practice being
followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed
to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, “henceforth”,
meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The
very use of the word “henceforth” implied that the said requirement of
furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after
his arrest was not the mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said
judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Singhvi for the
Appellant that the said judgment was required to be given effect retrospectively
cannot be accepted when the judgment itself states that it would be necessary
“henceforth” that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the
arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. Hence non
furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of
judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action
of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted
with. As such, the action of informing the person arrested about the grounds of
his arrest is a sufficient compliance of Section 19 of PMLA as also Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India, as held in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).”
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has pointed out the allegations
against the accused petitioner in the FIR, wherein it is reflected that the present
petitioner was driving the Swift vehicle bearing no AS01-FQ-8535 and two other
occupants were also present inside the vehicle i.e. co accused Faizul Haq and
another Salam who expired during the exchange of shootout between police
Page No.# 5/15
and the accused petitioner and co-accused.
11. It is also submitted that inside the car near the driver’s seat, one factory
made pistol with one magazine containing two live rounds was found and in the
rear seat, a black colored bag was found which contained the contraband items.
The firearms and the narcotic drugs were seized and all three occupants were
shifted to the Hospital.
12. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as the petitioner
was apprehended along with narcotic drugs and the petitioner and the co-
accused started firing towards police personnel in order to flee away from the
scene, under such backdrop, it cannot be said that they have no knowledge
regarding the grounds of their arrest.
13. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the trial court record which reflects that the accused petitioner was
shifted to Hospital immediately after apprehension as the petitioner and the co-
accused who occupied the swift car started firing towards the police personnel
from inside the vehicle and as a retaliation, the police also fired towards the
accused. As a result of which, the petitioner and the co-accused sustained
injuries and one of them died on the spot.
14. In Prabir Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), a contention was raised that grounds
of arrest were not informed to the accused either orally or in writing, and
therefore, there was gross violation of the constitutional mandate under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50(1) of Cr.PC. In the said case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after extensively referring to its earlier judgment in
Pankaj Bansal’s case (Supra), in paragraphs 20 to 22 and 29 to 31, has observed
as under –
Page No.# 6/15
“20. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court
that any person arrested for allegation of commission of
offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter
any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory
right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing
and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be
furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and
without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing
to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and
sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only
effective means for the arrested person to consult his
Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek
bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting
the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
21. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most
sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20,
21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to
encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned
upon by this Court in a catena of decisions. In this regard,
we may refer to the following observations made by this
Court in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala – (2000) 8 SCC 590.
“7. The life and liberty of an individual is so sacrosanct that
it cannot be allowed to be interfered with except under the
authority of law. It is a principle which has been recognized
and applied in all civilized countries. In our
Page No.# 7/15Constitution Article 21 guarantees protection of life and
personal liberty not only to citizens of India but also to
aliens.”
Thus, any attempt to violate such fundamental right,
guaranteed by Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of
India, would have to be dealt with strictly.
22. The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest
flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any
infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the
process of arrest and remand. Mere fact that a charge-
sheet has been filed in the matter, would not validate the
illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time
of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police
custody remand to the accused.
29. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the
communication of the grounds is exactly the identical.
Neither of the constitutional provisions requires that the
‘grounds’ of “arrest” or “detention”, as the case may be,
must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to
this important facet of the fundamental right as made by
the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article
22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply
to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is
Page No.# 8/15
concerned.
30. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the
requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the
grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in
connection with an offence or a person placed under
preventive detention as provided under Articles
22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct
and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-
compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory
mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being
rendered illegal, as the case may be.
31. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have
already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal
(supra) laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the
grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the
person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the
fervent plea of the learned ASG that there was no
requirement under law to communicate the grounds of
arrest in writing to the appellant-accused is noted to be
rejected.”
15. In Prabir Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), after referring to the judgment in
Ram Kishor Arora‘s case (Supra) and Pankaj Bansal’s case (Supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal’s case would apply
retrospectively, and it is also held that the ratio laid down in Pankaj Bansal’s
case is the law of the land binding on all the Courts in the country by virtue
Page No.# 9/15
of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 45 & 46 of Prabir
Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under –
“45. It was the fervent contention of learned ASG that in
the case of Ram Kishor Arora (Supra), a two- Judge Bench
of this Court interpreted the judgment in the case of
Pankaj Bansal (Supra) to be having a prospective effect andthus the ratio of Pankaj Bansal (Supra) cannot come to the
appellant’s aid. Indisputably, the appellant herein was
remanded to police custody on 4th October, 2023 whereas
the judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal (Supra) was
delivered on 3rd October, 2023. Merely on a conjectural
submission regarding the late uploading of the judgment,
learned ASG cannot be permitted to argue that the ratio of
Pankaj Bansal (Supra) would not apply to the present case.
Hence, the plea of Shri Raju, learned ASG that the
judgment in Pankaj Bansal (Supra) would not apply to the
proceedings of remand made on 4th October, 2023 is
misconceived.
46. We are of the firm opinion that once this Court has
interpreted the provisions of the statute in context to the
constitutional scheme and has laid down that the grounds
of arrest have to be conveyed to the accused in writing
expeditiously, the said ratio becomes the law of the land
binding on all the courts in the country by virtue of Article
141 of the Constitution of India.”
Page No.# 10/15
16. In Arvind Kejriwal’s case (Supra) – 2024 SCC Online SC 1703, at paragraph
73, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under –
“73. In Prabir Purkayastha (Supra), this Court went beyond
the rigors of the PML Act/UAPA. Drawing a distinction
between “reasons to arrest” and “grounds for arrest”, it
held that while the former refers to the formal parameters,
the latter would require all such details in the hands of the
investigating officer necessitating the arrest. Thus, the
grounds of arrest would be personal to the accused.”
17. In Ram Kishor Arora‘s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that such service of grounds of arrest must be performed at an outer limit,
within 24 hours of arrest.
18. In KVR Vidyasagar’s case (Supra), the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
paragraph 44 & 45, has observed as under –
“44. As discussed above, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pankaj
Bansal’s case, with reference to section 19(1) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Article 22 of
the Constitution of India observed that “grounds of arrest
be communicated in writing”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in
Prabir Purkayastha‘s case explained the difference between
the ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’, stating that
the grounds of arrest may convey to the arrested accused
all basic facts, on which he was being arrested to provide
him an opportunity of defending himself against the
custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the grounds of
Page No.# 11/15arrest would invariably be personal to the accused and
cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’, which are
general in nature.
45. Therefore, to comply mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India and section 47(1) of BNSS, 2023 in its
sprit, I am of the considered opinion that the grounds of
arrest must be informed in writing conveying the basic
facts, on which the accused was arrested to provide him an
opportunity of defending himself against the custodial
remand and to seek bail.”
19. It is the contention of the learned Addl. P.P that immediately after the arrest
of the petitioner on 02.01.2024, he was served with an intimation notice and
the copy of the said notice is available in the record. Perusal of the same would
go to show that the petitioner has received the same under acknowledgment
and his signature is found on the said notice. It is not the case of the petitioner
that he has not received the said notice. The said intimation notice dated
02.01.2024 u/s 50 Cr.PC reads as follows –
“Ref : North Guwahati P.S C/No.151/23 u/s
353/333/307/279/338/39 IPC R/W SC-21(c)/29 NDPS Act,
R/W Section 25(1-A) 27/35 Arms Act.
To,
Sri Hiranya Thakuria @ Rajib, Age – 28 yrs
S/o Sri Uttam Thakuria
Boromboi, Mokhonia
P.O – Hajo
You are hereby informed that you are arrested in conn with
the above reference case as it is non-bailable to Police. So,
Page No.# 12/15
you are forwarded to the Hon’ble Court. You may submit a
petition before the Hon’ble Court for your bail.”
20. In Prabir Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the
arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide
him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek
bail. Thus, the grounds of arrest would invariably be personal to the accused
and cannot be equated with the reasons of arrest which are general in nature.
21. In the intimation notice, in the case in hand, dated 02.01.2024, all basic
facts of the case in which the petitioner was being arrested has been mentioned
indicating the case number and the provisions of law under which he was
arrested and he was informed to take necessary legal recourse through his
Advocate.
22. In Prabir Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), after referring to the judgment of
Pankaj Bansal’s case (Supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held
that the grounds of arrest should be served in writing to the arrested accused
mentioning the basic facts on which he is being arrested so as to provide him an
opportunity of defending against custodial remand and to seek bail. Such basic
facts of the case in which the petitioner was arrested in this case is found in the
intimation notice dated 02.01.2024. I have no hesitation to hold that the
respondent- Police have followed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pankaj Bansal’s case and Prabir Purkayastha‘s case (Supra), and no
legal infirmity can be found in the arrest of the petitioner.
23. In Ram Kishor Arora‘s case (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
examined the judgment in Pankaj Bansal’s case (Supra) and in paragraphs 16 &
Page No.# 13/15
22, it is observed as under –
“16. In view of the aforestated proposition of law
propounded by the Constitution Benches, there remains no
shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the three-Judge
Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that Section 19(1) PMLA
has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects
sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said
provision is also in the compliant with the mandate
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, any observation
made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of
lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid
down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary would be not in
consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by
the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The
three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary having
already examined in detail the constitutional validity
of Section 19 PMLA on the touchstone of Article 22(1) and
upheld the same, it holds the field as on the date.
22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary it has been categorically
held that so long as the person has been informed about
the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with
mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also
observed that the arrested person before being produced
before the Special Court within twenty-four hours or for
that purposes of remand on each occasion, the Court is
free to look into the relevant records made available by the
Page No.# 14/15authority about the involvement of the arrested person in
the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion
the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally
about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is
furnished a written communication about the grounds of
arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and
within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-
four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance
of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India.”
24. Reverting to the case in hand, it also appears from the record that in
connection with the alleged incident, the statement of three persons who were
present on the spot, were recorded by the Magistrate u/s 183 BNSS (Section
164 Cr.PC) wherein they stated that the swift vehicle was occupied by three
persons including the present petitioner and they started firing towards the
police personnel who chased them and driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle
with high speed and fled away from the scene.
25. From the record, it also reveals that the accused petitioner was admitted
to GMCH on 03.12.2023 and discharged on 01.01.2024 and subsequently, the
accused petitioner was arrested on 02.01.2024 on his release from hospital and
brought to the police station. Accordingly, the arrest memo and the Section 50
notice, were issued to the petitioner on 02.01.2024.
26. In the case in hand, though there is no specific revelation regarding
grounds of arrest in S.50 notice or arrest memo, but the sequence is something
different. As it appears that the petitioner was driving the alleged vehicle from
Page No.# 15/15
which the alleged contraband was recovered and to evade arrest, gunfight took
place between the accused and the police and the petitioner was injured for
which he was admitted to the hospital. Under such backdrop, it cannot be said
that the accused petitioner was not aware of the fact why he was being arrested
in connection with this case. Accordingly, the cited case laws vide Prabir
Purkashyatha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) are not applicable in the instant
case.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion and under the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and hence,
the prayer for bail is rejected.
28. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
[ad_1]
Source link