Bail Allowed Under UAPA | Meghalaya High Court Finds Arrest Illegal Without Communication of Grounds
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Meghalaya Single Bench of Justice W. Diengdoh has directed the release on bail of an accused arrested under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act. The Court held that the arrest was vitiated due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 43B of the UAPA. The Court ordered release of the accused on conditions, while making clear that constitutional safeguards override statutory restrictions when violated.
The matter arose from a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the petitioner, who had been arrested on 12 March 2024 in connection with Nongpoh P.S. Case No. 25(03) 2024. The allegations were framed under Sections 120B and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 10, 13, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, this was the third bail application filed before the High Court, following withdrawal of an earlier one with liberty to file afresh. In addition, four bail applications had been moved before the Trial Court. The counsel submitted that despite filing of the chargesheet citing thirty-one witnesses, charges had not been framed. It was argued that the only material against the petitioner was his relationship to a co-accused, Damanbha Ripnar, and phone call records linking them.
The petitioner’s principal contention was that the arresting authority failed to comply with Section 43B of the UAPA, which mandates informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest. It was contended that this statutory safeguard also flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution, making non-compliance fatal to the legality of the detention. Reliance was placed on Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024) 8 SCC 254, where the Supreme Court had stated: “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 petitioner further cited Thokchom Shyamjai Singh & Ors v. Union of India, wherein the Delhi High Court had followed the Supreme Court’s view, and also relied on Athar Parwez v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024, where prolonged pre-trial custody was held violative of Article 21.
Per contra, the State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, opposed the plea, arguing that this was the fifth bail application without any change in circumstances, thereby rendering it not maintainable. Reliance was placed on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao (1989 Supp (2) SCC 605), and Mohd Salman v. State GNCT of Delhi (2024), wherein successive bail applications without change in circumstances were held impermissible.
The State further contended that the arrest memo, signed by the petitioner, recorded that the grounds of arrest had been informed, and therefore there was compliance. Reliance was placed on Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 7 SCC 599, and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1, to submit that oral communication suffices under Article 22(1).
The State also argued that reliance on Prabir Purkayastha was misplaced since the judgment dated 15 May 2024 could not apply retrospectively to an arrest made on 12 March 2024. It was submitted that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is barred if accusations are prima facie true, citing Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC Online SC 109), where the Supreme Court observed: “Bail is an exception and jail is the rule under UAP Act.”
After considering submissions, the Court noted that despite cognizance being taken, no charges were framed even after more than a year in custody. The petitioner’s one-agenda contention was that he was never communicated the grounds of arrest in writing, thereby violating Article 22(1).
Justice W. Diengdoh recorded that while the allegations were grave under UAPA, even the most stringent law must align with constitutional provisions: “In our country even the most stringent Act or canon of law has to confirm with the constitutional provisions, wherein the life and liberty of a citizen and the accompanying rights guaranteed therein has to be kept in mind.”
The Court referred to Article 22(1): “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
Section 43B of UAPA was quoted: “Any officer arresting a person under section 43A shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.”
The Court then cited Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) 5 SCC 799, which clarified: “The grounds should be effectively and fully communicated to the arrestee in the manner in which he will fully understand the same… there is no requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing. Article 22(1) also incorporates the right of every person arrested to consult an advocate… If the grounds of arrest are not communicated… it will amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1).”
The judgment further quoted from Vihaan Kumar: “When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist.”
On examining records, Justice Diengdoh observed: “Except for the bald statement found at para 8 of the Arrest Memo which says that the arrested person has been informed of the grounds of arrest, there is nothing on record to show that such grounds have been duly spelt out and communicated to the accused/petitioner in writing. In the opinion of this Court, this can only mean that such grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the petitioner.”
The Court concluded that non-communication of grounds vitiated the arrest: “Non-compliance with Article 22(1) will be a violation of the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed by the said Article. Moreover, it will amount to a violation of the right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21… further orders passed by a criminal court of remand are also vitiated.”
The High Court allowed the petition and directed release on bail. Justice Diengdoh ordered: “This petition is hereby allowed. The accused/petitioner is directed to be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, on the following conditions.”
The Court set out conditions, including that the petitioner shall not abscond or tamper with witnesses; that he shall attend court as and when called; that he shall not leave Meghalaya without permission; and that he shall execute a bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.
The Court clarified: “When a violation of Article 22(1) is established, it is the duty of the court to forthwith order the release of the accused. That will be a ground to grant bail even if statutory restrictions on the grant of bail exist.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate; Mr. S. Purkayastha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. N.D. Chullai, Additional Advocate General; Mr. E.R. Chyne, Government Advocate; Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shri Robinus Ripnar v. The State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:MLHC:757
Case Number: BA No. 38 of 2025
Bench: Justice W. Diengdoh
