Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010144752025 2025:GAU-AS:11004 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2159/2025 SHIVA SATNAMI S/O- SRI GOPAL SATNAMI. VILL.- JUGIJAN PUB KANDULIMARI, P.S.- HOJAI, DIST.- HOJAI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM 2:PRABIN MUCHAHARY S/O- LATE ABHICHAND MUCHARARY. VILL.- BANGALDOBA. P.O.- HALOADAL. P.S.- KOKRAJHAR DIST.-KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-783370 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM, MR. S UDDIN,F KHATUN,MR A ALAM,MR S HUSSAIN,MR. A A MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 19.08.2025 Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Page No.# 2/5 Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. Also heard Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2. 2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, viz., Sri Shiva Satnami, has prayed for bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No.37/2025 arising out of Fakiragram P.S. Case No.7/2025 registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 3. The F.I.R. dated 04.02.2025 lodged by the father of the victim reveals that when the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years of age went to her grandmother’s house to celebrate Saraswati Puja, she went missing and a search was made and she was not found and accordingly the F.I.R. was lodged. The police after receipt of the ejahar registered the case and during the investigation the victim girl was recovered and the accused person was identified and arrested. 4. Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as mandated under the law, no grounds of arrest under Section 47 as well as under Section 48 of the BNSS were served upon the petitioner and as such the learned counsel prays for bail on that count. 5. On the last occasion, this Court requested the learned Addl. P.P. to go through the records and find out as to whether the grounds of arrest were served upon the petitioner. In view of the same, the learned Addl. Page No.# 3/5 P.P. went through the records and has fairly submitted that although notices were issued under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS to the petitioner but the same do not contain the grounds of arrest as contemplated by law. 5. Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also fairly accepts the submission of the learned Addl. P.P. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. It is no res integra that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of decisions had observed that the grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the accused person both under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a written ground of arrest should be furnished to the accused person as a matter of course and without exception and non-furnishing of the same would be violative of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the BNSS. In yet another decision rendered by the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, it was observed that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be Page No.# 4/5 breached under any situation. 8. In view of the said judgments it is mandatory that the grounds of arrest needs to be given to the accused person. In the instant case although in the forwarding report it is reflected that grounds of arrest has been communicated to the person by issuing notice under Section 47 and to his relatives by issuing notice under Section 48 of the BNSS by way of W.T. message but on perusal of the said notices it is found that the requirements of law have not been followed. In the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS in the instant case the petitioner was only informed that he was arrested under the said case and was also informed about the offences and that the same are non-bailable and that he can submit a petition for bail but the requirements that the details of the offences have to be given to the petitioner which required his arrest has not been provided to the petitioner. 9. Even in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, which requires the information to the relatives of the accused person, only the Case number and the offences was intimated to the relatives without any details under which the accused was arrested. The same is in teeth of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court. In view of the same, the arrest of the petitioner and keeping him inside the jail is vitiated and he needs to be released forthwith. Page No.# 5/5 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Kokrajhar on the following conditions :- 1) That the petitioner will not approach the victim or any near relatives of the victim. 2) That the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the instant case. 3) That the petitioner will cooperate with the trial and would appear before the Trial Court as and when called for. 11. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant