Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010121042025 2025:GAU-AS:9966 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1849/2025 SRI CHAKAR SAHANI @ SANKAR SAHANI S/O- SRI GANGUA SAHANI. R/O- VILL.- KALIBARI, P.S.- TEZPUR, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LD. PP, ASSAM 2:MRS. SINU SAHANI W/O- TINKU SAHANI. R/O- VILL.- KALIBARI P.S.- TEZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BARUAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR NAWAZ(AMICUS CURIAE, R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Baruah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Page No.# 2/4 of Assam. Also heard Mr. S. Nawaz, learned Amicus Curiae for the informant/ respondent No.2 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Chakar Sahani @ Sankar Sahani, who has been detained behind the bars since 24.12.2024 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 32/2025 arising out of Tezpur P.S. Case No. 765/2024 under Sections 96/65(1) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.12.2024, mother of the victim had lodged an FIR that on 22.12.2024 at about 4.30 pm, the minor daughter of the informant was kidnapped by the present petitioner and whereabouts of the victim girl was not known till the date of filing of the FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Charge Sheet in this case was laid on 25.03.2025. He submits that it was filed on the 91st day of the lodging of the FIR and therefore, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to get default bail. He also submits that in the aforesaid case, the charges have been framed already and the victim girl has also been examined and ten more witnesses are yet to be examined. He submits that unless the petitioner is released on bail, he may not be able to defend his case properly. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is also seeking bail on the ground of violation of his constitutional right guaranteed under Section 22(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch, as though at the time of his arrest, notice under Section 47 of the BNSS was served on the petitioner it does not contains any grounds of arrest therein. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 submitted that the victim girl has implicated the petitioner in the offence as alleged against him in this case. He however, fairly submits that the notice served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS does not contain any grounds of arrest therein, it only contained the police station case number as well as the panel provision involved in the offence. 6. Learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted similar to that of learned Add.Public Prosecutor. He also submits that in this case, the charge sheet was laid on the 91st days. However, after the lapse of 90th day, no application for default bail was filed before the court and the same was filed only after filing of the charge sheet. Therefore, in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs- The State of Maharashtra reported in (2001) 5 SCC 453, the petitioner is not entitled to get default bail. He however, also concedes that notice served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS does not contain any grounds of arrest therein. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the trial court records. In this case, the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 24.12.2024 and the victim girl has already been examined. Though this bail application has been filed on several grounds by the present petitioner, however, let us examine the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no grounds of arrest has been furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest. On perusal of the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS served on the petitioner, a copy of which is available in the case records, it appears that the said notice does not contains any grounds of arrest which necessitated his arrest. The Hon’ble Apex Page No.# 4/4 Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal –vs- Union of India & Ors reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 and thereafter in several other cases have observed that the furnishing of the grounds of arrest, in writing, is the mandatory requirement of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and any violation of the said requirement would render the arrest of an arrestee itself illegal. In the instant case also as no grounds of arrests were furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest, the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. The other contentions of the petitioner are not required to be disposed of in view of the fact, that is found to be entitled to get bail in this case. 8. In view of above discussion, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sonitpur, Tezpur with following conditions that:- (i) The petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special POCSO Case No. 32/2025; and (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court. 9. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant