Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010069662025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1040/2025 MD ALI HUSSAIN S/O- YASUDDIN ALI R/O VILL-SORAIJONI P.S. SOOTIA DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN CODE- 784176 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T N SRINIVASAN, MR. N ISLAM,MS TH A DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. N. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Md. Ali Hussain, who have been detained behind the bars Page No.# 2/4 since 10.02.2025 (for last 58 days) in connection with Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 under Sections 61(2)(a)/329(3)/111(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.01.2025, one M. Rahman, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Helem Police Station, inter alia, alleging that it has come to the notice of the informant that the petitioner along with several other local and outside associates have been illegally hunting rhinoceros for their horns and other wildlife in Gamiri Forest Area. It is also alleged in the FIR that Ratna Kanta Pegu has procured illegal weapons for hunting wildlife from Dimapur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation made in the FIR against the present petitioner is vague and no specific accusation has been made against him in respect of the specific incident. He also submits that the petitioner was shown arrested in connection with this case on 10.02.2025 while he was detained behind the bars in connection with some other accused and at the time of his arrest, no ground of arrest were shown to him. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no weapon was recovered from the possessions of the present petitioner. Further, he has submitted that the petitioner has already undergone detention behind the bars for 58 days and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and, therefore, he may be allowed to go on bail. Page No.# 3/4 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in similar kinds of offences in other cases also. 8. As regards the submissions regarding not furnishing grounds of arrest, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was shown arrested in the instant case after the permission for same was granted by the Court and as the prayer for shown arrest was made by the Investigating Officer in their presence, no separate grounds of arrest are required to be furnished to the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the case diary of Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this case. 10. As regards furnishing the grounds of arrest is concerned, it is the constitutional mandate that at the time of arrest of a person in connection with a case, the grounds which necessitated the arrest of that person in such case has to be furnished. The said mandate is applicable even in case where an accused is shown to have been arrested where he was already in custody in connection with some other case. 11. Further, in the instant case, no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and he is detained behind the bars for last 58 days. 12. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention may not be necessary in this case. Page No.# 4/4 13. Hence, in view of above, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gohpur with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or before the Court 14. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant