Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010139902025 2025:GAU-AS:11821 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2097/2025 JOHIRUL ISLAM SARKAR ALIAS ZAHIRUL ISLAM SARKAR S/O LATE NUR ISLAM SARKAR R/O VILL- BANGALIPARA PT.I P.S. BILASIPARA DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSSAM TO BE REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MR. M A CHOUDHURY,U U KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 02.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A. Ahmed for the petitioner Johirul Islam Sarkar @Zahirul Islam Sarkar. 2. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, Page No.# 2/5 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 01.03.2025 in connection with Bilasipara Police Station Case No. 68/2025 pending in the Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Bilasipara under Sections 103/109 of the BNS. 3. Heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He immediately after the accident went to the police station and lodged the FIR and did not attempt to escape. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the complainant of this case attacked the appellant with dao. Many cases are pending between both the parties. Moreover, the grounds of arrest were not informed to the petitioner in a manner which the petitioner could understand. It is an accident case and not a case of murder. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner as there are incriminating materials and a prima facie case has been found against him. 6. This is not a case of accident as submitted by the petitioner but a case of intentional murder. There is every possibility that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence considering the aggressive nature of the petitioner. Many eyewitnesses have implicated that the petitioner was involved in the incident which resulted in the death of the victim. The petitioner has intentionally caused the murder of the victim. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection I have also scrutinized the Trial Court Records along with the Case Diary. 8. The FIR unfolds that on 28.02.2025 at about 2 p.m., the informant's uncle Page No.# 3/5 Meher Ali was proceeding towards his house from Bangalipara Bazaar. Then the petitioner who was driving a white colored WagonR bearing registration No. AS01-BM-1227 stopped the car and inflicted slashes on the victim Meher Ali's head. Then the petitioner got into his car and reversed the car with such speed which was sufficient to kill the victim. The petitioner then hit the victim and killed him. The informant Asghar Ali along with Sobhiyal Haq and another person named Asgar Ali, witnessed the incident as they were present at the place of occurrence and they tried to stop the car, but the petitioner also tried to run over them and fled from the place of occurrence. Immediately the informant took his uncle to the hospital but the doctor declared him as dead. 9. It is further alleged that earlier the petitioner intentionally tried to kill the informant by running his car over the informant and the informant lodged the FIR registered as Bilasipara P.S. Case No. 471/2023 registered as PRC Case No. 381/2024 under Sections 120(B)/307 of the IPC. Prior to this incident, the petitioner also tried to kill the other family members of the informant by attacking them with dao and knives. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is not plausible that an accused from time to time will try to kill somebody with his vehicle and the same accused will again attempt to kill the family members of the informant with knives and dao. It is submitted that due to the prevailing bad blood between the informant and the petitioner, several false cases have been brought up against the petitioner by the informant. Unfortunately, an accident had occurred and the petitioner immediately went to the police station and informed the police about the accident. 11. The petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Anr, reported in 2025 SCC Page No.# 4/5 online 269, wherein it has been held that:- “ The learned Single Judge, unfortunately, has equated information given regarding the appellant's arrest with the grounds of arrest. The observation that the allegation of non-supply of the grounds of arrest made by the appellant is a bald allegation is completely uncalled for All courts, including the High Court, have a duty to uphold fundamental rights Once a violation of a fundamental right under Article 22(1) was alleged, it was the duty of the High Court to go into the said contention and decide in one way or the other. When a violation of Article 22(1) is alleged with respect to grounds of arrest, there can be possible two contentions raised (a) that the arrested person was not informed of the grounds of arrest, or (b) purported information of grounds of arrest does not contain any ground of arrest. As far as the first contention is concerned, the person who is arrested can discharge his burden by simply alleging that grounds of arrest were not informed to him. If such an allegation is made in the pleadings, the entire burden is on the arresting agency or the State to satisfy the court that effective compliance was made with the requirement of Article 22(1). Therefore the view taken by the High Court is completely erroneous. “ 12. In the case at hand, there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner could clearly understand the grounds of arrest. He was informed in writing that he has been arrested in connection with this case and he was suggested to submit petition for bail as the offense is not bailable. The petitioner has received the notice informing the grounds of arrest and he has affixed his signature in English. Notice under Section 48 has also been issued and this has been received by the petitioner's relative and the legal guardian has affixed his signature in English. 13. I have considered the gravity of the offence. The case is at the initial stage of trial. It appears that trial may be adversely affected if the petitioner is enlarged enlarged on bail at this stage. 14. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Page No.# 5/5 Kasireddy Upender Reddy –vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & anr. in connection with Criminal Appeal No.2808 of 25 arising out of SLP No. 7746/25 and SLP No.5691/25 wherein by order dated 23.05.2025, it has been held in paragraph 27 and paragraph 28 herein quoted below:- “ 27. The object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated to the person arrested has been very succinctly explained in Vihaan Kumar (supra). On learning about the grounds for arrest, the person concerned will be in a position to make an application before the appropriate Court for bail, or move the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. Further, the information will enable the arrested person to prepare his defence in time for the purposes of his trial. For these reasons, it has been provided by the Constitution that, the ground for the arrest must be communicated to the person arrested as soon as possible. 28.For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case.” 15. In the instant case too, it is held that the information was sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand the grounds of arrest and it is thereby held that the grounds of arrest has been properly communicated to the petitioner. It is held that the petitioner could clearly understand the grounds of arrest communicated to him. The case is at its nascent stage of trial. At this juncture, it appears that the trial may be adversely affected if the petitioner is enlarged on bail. The petition for bail is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant