Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010122092025 2025:GAU-AS:9813 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1931/2025 CHARAN MANDAL ALIAS MONU MANDAL S/O CHANMOHAN MANDALVILL- BURGAON, BORDUBA P.S. MAYONG DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SRI NIKHIL BISWAS S/O MOHANBSHI BISWAS VILL- KAURIHAGI P.S. MAYONG DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782411 M.NO. 709909937 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N J DUTTA, MR A ALAM,MR. A A MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SURAJIT DAS, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. N.J.Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Das, the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Charan Mandal @ Monu Mandal, who has been detained behind the bars since 28.05.2024 (for the last 428 days), in connection with POCSO Case No. 88/2024, under Sections 366/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. In this case, the petitioner is facing a trial in the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO for charges under Sections 366/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the victim girl as well as the informant have already been examined by the Trial Court as prosecution witnesses. He also submits that out of 10(ten) listed prosecution witnesses, 6(six)witnesses have already been examined. 5. However, the petitioner has been languishing behind bars for the last 428 days. He also submits that in her testimony as PW-1, the victim girl has deposed before the Trial Court, that she was having love affairs Page No.# 3/6 with the present petitioner and she exerted no force to have physical relationship with her. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that at the time of his arrest, the petitioner was furnished with notice under section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, said notice did not contain any grounds of arrest. He submits that this amounts to violation of his Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under Section 22(1) of the Constitution of India and such violation makes the arrest of the petitioner itself illegal. 7. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799.” 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to the bail of the petitioner on the ground that this is for the second time the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking bail. His earlier bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 18.02.2025 in Bail Application No. 3811/2024. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the fact that the victim as well as the informant have already been examined by the Trial Court was considered by the co-ordinate bench and in spite of that, his prayer for bail was rejected mainly on the ground that the Apex Court has in catena of decisions have held that in serious offences, like murder, dacoity and rape, once trial commences and prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Trial Court or High Court should be loath, in Page No.# 4/6 entertaining bail application and it is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed that too for no fault of the accused, the Court may be justified in releasing the accused on bail. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however fairly submits that in the notice under Section 50, which was served on the petitioner, no grounds of arrest have been mentioned. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae has submitted similar to that of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the scanned copy of the records of POCSO Case No. 88/2024. 13. On perusal of the notice served on the petitioner under Section 50 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the time of his arrest, it appears that the same does not contain any grounds of arrest, no basic facts which necessitated his arrest have been mentioned in the said notice. 14. It is, therefore, apparent that there has been a violation of the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed to him in, guaranteed to him under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and on that ground, the petitioner is entitled to get bail. 15. As the petitioner is found entitled to get bail on the ground of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest to him when he was arrested. The other plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking bail Page No.# 5/6 becomes immaterial and therefore, same is not dealt with in this case. 16. For reasons mentioned herein above, 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 Trial Court with following conditions:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of POCSO Case No. 88/2024, under Sections 366/376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner 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 before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 17. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. Page No.# 6/6 18. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant