Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010090832025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1391/2025 SURYA BHANU AND ANR D/O- ABDUL LATIF, R/O- VILL- KANHARA, P.S.-GARAIMARI, DIST.-KAMRUP , ASSAM 2: ABDUL LATIF S/o- LATE SONGSHER ALI R/O- VILL-KANHARA P.S- GARAIMARI KAMRUP ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR A AHMED,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 15.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Surya Bhanu, and (2) Abdul Latif, who have been detained behind the bars since 01.03.2025 (for the last 76 days) in connection with Goraimari P. S. Case No. 23/2025, registered under Sections 296/117(2)/118(2)/109/ 74/3(5)/103/61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 27.02.2025, one Nausad Ali Ahmed had lodged an FIR, naming therein nine (09) accused persons, including the present petitioners, inter-alia, alleging that the family members of the present petitioners, trespassed into the house of the informant and assaulted the brother of the informant and his uncle and in the assault, the brother of the informant, Nausad Ali Ahmed, succumbed to injuries and internally sustained grievous hurt. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. 5. He submits that there is a boundary dispute between both the parties since long and when the accused No. 3 named in the FIR, namely, Abdul Latif was going to Masjid, the informant side abused him. This led to an altercation. He also submits that in the instant case, at the time of arrest of the petitioners, they were furnished with notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. However, Page No.# 3/4 said notice does not contain the grounds of arrest and on that ground, they are entitled to get bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent has produced the case diary of Goraimari P. S. Case No. 23/2025 and has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner No. 2, Abdul Latif having been involved in the incident of assault. 7. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 was also present at the place of arrest and she also made no attempt to prevent the accused persons from assaulting the accused person. 8. Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, fairly submits that the notice served on the petitioners under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, does not contain the grounds of arrest. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have gone through the materials available. 10. Both the petitioners are detained behind the bars since last 76 days. It also appears that there has been a fair progress in the investigation. 11. The question which is relevant in consideration of this instant bail application is mainly that both the petitioners were furnished with the notice under Section 47 of BNSS, 2023, however, the said notice does not contain grounds of arrest, which is a violation of the statutory provision contained in Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 as well as the constitutional provisions contained in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 12. There is apparent violation of the constitutional as well as statutory mandate in this case, which itself is sufficient to release the petitioners on bail. 13. For the reasons mentioned herein above, both the above-named Page No.# 4/4 petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Amingoan with the following conditions: i. That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any 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. 14. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. 15. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant