Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010140632025 2025:GAU-AS:11034 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2109/2025 MAINUL HAQUE ISLAM ALIAS MD MAINUL ISLAM ALIAS HOQUE SON OF MD. NUR JAMAL R/O MORNOI GAON, P.S. BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:MD. NUR HUSSAIN S/O MD. ABDUL MALEK R/O DAULATPUR P.S. BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S G BARUAH, MR. B BORGOHAIN,MR B SAIKIA,MR. S NEOG Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, I AMIN (R-2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 19.08.2025 1. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel assisted by Mr. B. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.2. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Mainul Hoque Islam @ Md. Mainul Islam @ Hoque, seeking regular bail in connection with Bihpuria P.S Case No.165/2024 in which after completion of charge-sheet, the Special (P) Case No.109/2024 was registered under Sections 366/376 of IPC, R/W Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The case is stated to be at the stage of trial and so far, five witnesses have been examined including the informant and the prosecutrix. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this bail application, they are taking recourse to the new ground of procedural infirmity in the notice under Section 47 BNSS and being violative of the constitutional provisions in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Notice under Section 47 BNSS and the notice under Section 48 BNSS has been annexed as Annexure-9. Page No.# 3/5 6. I have perused the same. 7. The scanned copy of TCR has been received and the arrest memo is also available. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who submits that though the prosecutrix have been examined so far, she has implicated the accused and the prosecution case has serious allegations. 9. Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the informant/respondent no.2 submits that the informant has no objection to the grant of bail at this stage. 10. In the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254: (2024) SCC Online SC 934 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) SCC Online SC 269, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that if grounds of arrest are not enumerated properly in reasonable detail and not furnished to the accused as well as his family members, the same would constitute the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, thereby rendering the arrest and subsequent detention illegal and untenable in law and that in such a situation, the accused would be entitled to bail. This would be so, even if there are some statutory restrictions on grant of bail. 11. Coming back to the instant case, the notice under Section 47/48 BNSS clearly do not meet the stipulated standards in terms of the governing law. The memorandum of arrest is also a standard form typed document and do not meet the stipulations laid down by Page No.# 4/5 the said governing law. 12. Therefore, I find force in the subsequent grounds adduced by the side of the accused. Though the arrest of the accused took place on 25.09.2024, the same suffered from fatal procedural infirmity violating the constitutional provisions in terms of law laid down in Vihaan Kumar (Supra) . 13. In any case, the trial has progressed and important witnesses like informant and prosecutrix have already been examined. 14. Needless to say that prolonged under trial detention during adjudication of a criminal case apart from causing prejudice to the accused, even to the extent of violating his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – could also damage the credibility of the criminal justice system. If there are some grave reasons due to which bail should be denied to the accused during trial then it is essential to at least expedite the trial, by fixing short dates for evidence recording. 15. Even where it is not possible to grant bail to the accused due to the application of some statutory bars, protecting the constitutional rights of the accused necessitates expediting of the trial, by fixing such short dates for prosecution evidence. 16. In the present case, in the given facts and circumstances and upon perusing the materials and hearing the learned counsels – the accused, namely, Mainul Hoque Islam @ Md. Mainul Islam @ Hoque is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) Page No.# 5/5 only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court with following conditions: i) That the accused shall be available for the remaining trial; ii) That the accused shall not, in any manner, intimidate or harass the informant/prosecutrix or family members; iii) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper any evidence or try to influence witnesses. 17. Violation of bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 18. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant