Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010076822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1161/2025 NAJIM UDDIN S/O- SORIF UDDIN, VILLAGE CHANMARI, PS RATABARI, DISTRICT SRIBHUMI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:DILARA KHATUN W/O- ASIR ALI VILLAGE SING GAON PS LANKA DISTRICT HOJAI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M ISLAM, MR M ISLAM,MR. R A MAZUMDER,MR. D HUSSAIN,MD E AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Najim Uddin who has been detained behind the bars since Page No.# 2/3 02.08.2024 (for last 362 days) in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 246/2024 under Section 64 of BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 67-A of the IT Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing trial in the Special (POCSO) Case No. 246/2024 which was registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the mother of the victim girl alleging that the victim girl was raped by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 362 days and only one of the eight listed prosecution witnesses has been examined. He, however, submits that the sole witness who has been examined is the prime witness i.e., the victim herself. He also submits that he is pressing for bail in this case mainly on the ground that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner was though furnished with a notice under Section 47 of BNSS, it did not contain any grounds of arrest. He submits that by serving a notice under Section 47 of BNSS without there being any mentioned about the grounds of arrest, there is a violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of BNSS. 5. He submits that that in view of the rulings of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799”, on violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India by not furnishing the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest, the arrest itself becomes illegal and on that ground itself the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that though there are materials against the petitioner on record, however, on perusal of the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, a copy of which is available in the record, he fairly submits that same does not contain any grounds of arrest. Page No.# 3/3 7. Same is the submission by the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 2. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the records of Special (POCSO) Case No. 246/2024. 9. On perusal of the copy of the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, which was served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest, it appears that same does not contain any grounds of arrest and thereby it is violative of the constitutional mandate of furnishing grounds of arrest, in writing, to the petitioner as has been clarified in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana”, reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” (supra) and few others rulings of the Apex Court. 10. In this case, the victim girl has already been examined and seven more witnesses are yet to be examined, however, as there has been violation of the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to the petitioner at the time of his arrest in the above noted case, he is entitled to get bail on that ground. 11. For the reasons discussed herein above, the petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of Trial Court with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the victim girl or to the witnesses or any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts of the case before the Investigating Officer; ii. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; 12. This bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant