Nagaland High Court rules arrest intimation is insufficient, requiring written grounds to relatives, and grants bail in Mokokchung case
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has held that merely informing a relative about an accused person’s arrest is not enough, ruling that the grounds of arrest must also be provided to the relative in writing.
The court observed that failure to provide written grounds of arrest to the wife of an accused violated the mandate of Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
The ruling was made by Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer while allowing a bail application in connection with a Mokokchung police case involving alleged use of a fake court seal and stamp in the name of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mokokchung.
According to the order passed on Monday, the accused, Anupam Kumar Singh, was arrested on February 20, 2026, from his official posting at the Directorate General of Assam Rifles Complex in Shillong and had remained in judicial custody since then.
Also read: Nagaland allowed to proceed with land acquisition under the State Act, says TR Zeliang
The case was registered at Mokokchung Police Station-I following an FIR lodged on January 14. After investigation, police filed a charge-sheet on May 19 under Sections 319(2) and 338 of the BNSS read with Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
The court noted that Singh had already had three bail applications rejected by the orders dated March 31, June 8 and June 23.
A key issue before the court was whether the arresting authorities had complied with the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest to the accused and his family.
The court found that the records showed the grounds of arrest had been provided to Singh in writing and acknowledged by him. However, the arrest intimation sent to his wife showed only that she had been informed of his arrest.
“Arrest intimation is different from grounds of arrest,” the court observed.
The court held that the requirement under Section 48 of the BNSS and Article 22 of the Constitution was not satisfied merely by informing the relative of the arrest.
“It is also a requirement of law that such grounds of arrest in writing must be received and acknowledged by the wife/relative and the same has to be on record,” the court said.
In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on Supreme Court judgements in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., and Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., besides an earlier order of the Kohima Bench dated October 14, 2025.
The court also noted that the investigation had been completed and the charge-sheet filed, with the case now ready for trial.
While the prosecution opposed bail, arguing that there was a prima facie case and that Singh could abscond as he was a permanent resident of Bihar and posted in Shillong, the court held that the violation of the statutory and constitutional safeguards warranted interference.
The court accordingly allowed the bail petition and directed Singh to furnish a bail bond of INR 50,000 with one local surety of the same amount, who must be a permanent resident of Mokokchung.
He was also directed not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to appear before the trial court on every date fixed.
The court further directed him to provide two contact numbers, proof of property in his or his wife’s name in Bihar, and address proof of his place of posting and permanent address in Bihar.