Arrest Rendered Illegal for Non-Communication of Grounds in Known Language and Non-Compliance with Sections 36 & 48 BNSS

The applicant was arrested under Sections 21(b) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act following the recovery of 41 grams of heroin and 5.894 kg (60,000 tablets) of methamphetamine from a residence in Champhai West, Aizawl, where he was staying as a guest. The applicant challenged his detention on the ground that mandatory statutory requirements under Sections 36 and 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and constitutional guarantees under Article 22(1) were violated during his arrest. The Gauhati High Court held that informing the grounds of arrest in a language understood by the arrestee is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, distinct from mere information of arrest. Finding that grounds were not communicated in writing in a known language, arrest intimation was improperly given to the house owner instead of family/friends, and co-accused were granted bail on identical grounds, the court declared the arrest illegal and granted bail.

Key Proposition: Communicating the grounds of arrest to an arrestee in a language understood by him as soon as may be is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023; failure to do so renders the arrest illegal, entitling the accused to release on bail.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – 

• Sections 36, 48 
•  Communication of grounds of arrest- Failure to inform arrestee in a known language and giving intimation to house owner instead of family/friends- Held, arrest illegal. 

• Articles 21, 22(1)
• Fundamental Rights of arrested person- Distinction between information of arrest and grounds of arrest – Held, grounds must be communicated in understandable language. 

• Sections 21(b), 22(c), 37 
•  Grant of bail on procedural illegality and parity with co-accused – Held, bail granted with conditions. 

Background / Synopsis :

• On 21.11.2025 at around 5:00 PM, excise officials received source information regarding transportation of contraband by Biaksamseia and an accomplice from Myanmar towards Aizawl.
• The investigating team intercepted intended buyer Kausar Uddin at Seling village, who disclosed his driver Masuk Uddin Laskar waiting at Falkland, Aizawl.
• Upon interrogation, Kausar Uddin and Masuk Uddin Laskar led officers to a residence in Champhai West, Aizawl.
• On searching the residence on 22.11.2025 at 5:00 AM, officers recovered 41 grams of heroin (in 3 soap cases) and 60,000 methamphetamine tablets (5.894 kg across two small sachets and six bundles).
• The applicant, Sh. Lalbiakhlua, a resident of Zokhawthar (originally Falam, Myanmar), was present at the residence as a guest and was arrested at 5:00 AM on 22.11.2025.
• Arrest intimation was provided to Mr. Hramchimang (the house owner), who was neither a relative, friend, family member, witness, nor cited as a prosecution or seizure witness.
• Grounds of arrest were not communicated to the applicant in a language known to him, nor were statutory provisions specified in the arrest intimation.
• Co-accused Kausar Ahmed (Bail Appln. No. 466/2026) and Vanlalawi (Bail Appln. No. 427/2026) were granted regular bail by the Special Judge, NDPS, Aizawl on grounds of non-compliance with Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS.
• The applicant approached the High Court under Section 483 BNSS r/w Section 37 NDPS Act seeking release on bail.

Issues For Consideration :

Whether the arrest of the applicant was rendered illegal due to non-compliance with the mandatory statutory requirements under Sections 36 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 48 of the NDPS Act. Whether failure to communicate the grounds of arrest to the arrestee in a language understood by him constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail on the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused who were granted bail.

Submissions Of Parties :

 Petitioner / Applicant:

• Contended that the contraband was recovered from a house where the applicant was merely staying as a guest without ownership or conscious possession of the seized items.
• Argued that arrest was made on mere suspicion without evidence linking the applicant to the contraband.
• Submitted that statutory provisions under Sections 36 and 48 of BNSS were grossly violated as arrest intimation was given to the house owner (Mr. Hramchimang) rather than a relative or friend, and no statement was recorded under Section 180 BNSS.
• Highlighted that grounds of arrest and statutory provisions were not communicated in a language known to the applicant.
• Relied on Supreme Court ruling in *Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana* (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269) and claimed parity with co-accused Kausar Ahmed and Vanlalawi who were granted bail.

Respondent / State:

• Fairly conceded that the mandates of Sections 36 and 48 of BNSS were contravened and not complied with during the arrest.
• Admitted that co-accused had been released on bail on the same procedural grounds by the Special Judge, NDPS Aizawl, and that the applicant stands on the same footing.
• Requested the Court to impose strict conditions to secure the presence of the applicant during trial if bail were granted.

Court's Observations & Analysis :

Re: Issues (i) &(ii): Mandatory Compliance with Statutory and Constitutional Safeguards on Arrest

• The Court examined Section 35 BNSS governing arrest without warrant and noted that casual arrest is impermissible for offenses punishable with imprisonment over 7 years unless conditions under Section 35(1)(b) are satisfied.
• Held that communicating sufficient knowledge of basic facts constituting grounds of arrest in an understandable language is a mandatory constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution, enshrined as a fundamental right.
• Emphasized that failure to communicate grounds of arrest deprives the arrestee of the liberty to effectively consult an advocate, violating fundamental rights.
• Reaffirmed the ratio of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 269), establishing that mere information of arrest or an arrest memo is fundamentally distinct from communicating grounds of arrest.
• Held that the arresting authority failed to comply with Sections 36 and 48 BNSS and Section 48 NDPS Act as no written communication was given to the arrestee or his relatives, and intimation was improperly served on the house owner.
• Concluded that non-communication of grounds of arrest in a known language rendered the arrest illegal.

Re: Issue (iii): Principle of Parity in Grant of Bail

• Observed that co-accused Kausar Ahmed and Vanlalawi had been released on bail by the Special Judge, NDPS Aizawl on the identical ground of violation of Sections 36 and 48 BNSS.
• Held that the learned Special Court ought to have applied the same yardstick to the present applicant in Bail Application No. 24 of 2026. 

Notable Observations: “Information about the arrest is completely different from the grounds of arrest. The grounds of arrest are different from the arrest memo... Mere information of arrest will not amount to furnishing grounds of arrest.” (Para 24, quoting Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana)

Decision & Directions:

Bail application allowed; the applicant is ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, NDPS, Aizawl, upon fulfillment of the following conditions:

1. Execution of a bail bond of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) with two separate sureties of the like amount.
2. One surety must be a permanent resident of Aizawl residing in his/her own house, and the second surety must be a regular government servant duly certified by the competent controlling authority.
3. The applicant and sureties shall submit photocopies of the Aadhaar Card/EPIC and three recent passport-size photographs.
4. The applicant shall file an affidavit declaring his place of stay at Aizawl and shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
5. Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on every date of hearing and shall not commit any offense while on bail.
6. The applicant shall furnish his mobile phone number and that of a responsible family member to the trial court and keep them operational.
7.  Any deliberate violation of conditions shall render the bail liable to cancellation.
8. The applicant is directed to approach the Special Judge, NDPS, Aizawl, for execution of bond and formalities. 

Legal Provisions Discussed & Precedents Cited:

• Constitution of India – Article 21 – Fundamental Right to Protection of Life and Personal Liberty.
• Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Mandatory Fundamental Right to be informed of grounds of arrest in an understandable language.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 35 (equivalent to CrPC S. 41) – Conditions for arrest without warrant.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 36 (equivalent to CrPC S. 41B) – Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 48 (equivalent to CrPC S. 50) – Person arrested to be informed of grounds of arrest and right to bail.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 180 (equivalent to CrPC S. 161) – Examination of witnesses by police.