Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010139092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2072/2025 LILA KANTA DHANDIA ALIAS LACHIT SON OF SRI MAHENDRA DHANDIA R/O URIAMPARA P.S. BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S M ABDULLAH P, MD IMRAN,MD R ISLAM,MS F HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER 25.06.2025 Heard Mr. P. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned APP for the State. 2. By filing this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, the petitioner, namely, Sri Lila Kanta Dhandia @ Lachit, who has been in judicial custody since 05.03.2025, in connection with Bihpuria Police Station Case No. 40/2025, under section 64 of the BNS, seeks bail in connection with Sessions Case No.51 (NL)/2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the parents of the petitioner are old aged persons and suffering from multiple age-related ailments. It is further submitted that the father of the petitioner is aged 87 years, while his mother, aged 65 years, has recently been admitted to Bongalmara Hospital, Lakhimpur. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner and the victim were in a relationship for some time and on 03.03.2025, the complainant had called the petitioner to her house and after her husband came to know about their relationship, a false FIR has been filed on 04.03.2025, which was registered as Bihpuria Police Station Case No. 40/2025, under Section 64 of the BNS, 2023, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her. 5. It is submitted that although upon his arrest, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 47 and 48 of BNSS, but ground of arrest has not been specifically stated. Accordingly, by relying on the case of Prabir Purkayastha vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar vs Page No.# 3/4 State of Haryana and Anr (2025 SCC Online SC 269), it is contended that non- furnishing of the ground of arrest is fatal. 6. The learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there was no statutory prescription, either by way of any Act, Rules, notification issued by the Govt. of India, the State of Assam, the National Human Right Commission or by any other statutory authority as to how the grounds of arrest should be filled up. 7. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the present case in hand, the grounds of arrest in condensed form has been stated and duly informed to the petitioner, which has been annexed to this bail application at page-21. Accordingly, it is submitted that the I.O. of the case is deemed to have complied in the ratio laid down of the Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. As the case relates to sexual assault on the complaint/ victim, instead of re-producing the contents of the FIR, it would suffice to mention that in the FIR the complainant (victim) had specifically stated on 03.03.2025 at 7.40 pm., the petitioner had entered her house and forcefully raped her while she was alone at her home. 9. In the notice of information of ground of arrest (48 of BNSS), in column no.1 it has been specifically mentioned as follows:- “ The accused person is FIR named accused person sufficient evidences were found against him of committing the crime’’. 10. The Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned APP that as the form or manner in which the grounds of arrest should be served, is not statutorily defined, in a case where sexual assault has been committed on a female by the sole accused, the information as quoted hereinbefore cannot be said to mean as if the grounds of arrest has not been furnished to the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 11. In this case, the petitioner is the sole accused, and is also named in the FIR. Therefore, the statement made by the Investigating Officer in the grounds of the arrest that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner, in the considered opinion of the Court, amounts to complete disclosure of the reason as to why the petitioner has been arrested. Therefore, in this case, the Court is of the considered opinion is that the Investigating Officer has sufficiently complied with the ratio laid down in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra). 12. Accordingly, in light of the provisions of Section 479 of the BNSS, describing the maximum period for which under trial prisoner can be detained and moreover in light of the ratio laid down in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, among others, requiring release/ entertain the prisoner on bail if he has been in jail for a period which is not less than half of the punishment provided to the offence with which he was charged, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. 13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant