Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010157982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2327/2025 SAHIL KHAN @ SAHIL KHAN HAZARIKA S/O- LATE SAIFUDDIN HAZARIKA, R/O- SYNERGY IMPERIAL, BLOCK -03, 3RD FLOOR, P.S.- DISPUR, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH, MR H MAZUMDER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 06.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/6 Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sahil Khan (@) Sahil Khan Hazarika, who has been detained behind the bars since 17.06.2025 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025 under Sections 303(2)/ 317(2)/ 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 336(3) of BNS, 2023 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 11.06.2025, one Sri Anjan Sarma, S.I., had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Dispur Police Station, inter alia, alleging that one Krishna Devi Brahma had lodged a complaint on 10.06.2023, before the Officer-in-Charge of Dipur Police Station, on the basis of which Dispur P.S. Case No. 499/2025 under Sections 318(4)/ 316(2)/ 69 of BNS was registered. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that during investigation of the said Dispur P.S. Case No. 499/2025, the house of the present petitioner was searched. During search operation, (i) 4 (four) pieces of empty cartridge of suspected to be 9 mm calibre pistol, (ii) 1 (one) cartridge of suspected to be 7.62 mm calibre SLR, (iii) 2 (two) live ammunitions of suspected to be 9 mm calibre pistol and some other incriminating materials were found from his possession. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 499/2025 on 10.06.2025. While he was in custody, the present FIR was lodged and the Investigating Officer in the present case filed an application before the court of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for showing the present petitioner as arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025 and also prayed for production in the said case, which was allowed. Page No.# 3/6 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though after being shown arrest in Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025, he was produced before the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. However, no grounds of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025 were communicated to the petitioner at the time of showing him arrest. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier case i.e. Dispur P.S. Case No. 499/2025, the grounds of arrest were communicated to him. However, in the present case, i.e. Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025, the grounds of arrest were not communicated to him. Therefore, he submits that the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India and the statutory right guaranteed under 47 of the BNSS has been violated. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Habib Ahmed Vs. State of Assam (Bail application No. 1096/2025) wherein it has been observed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the case of shown arrest, the requirement of showing the grounds of arrest is not furnished, such ground would be the violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the only ammunitions that have been recovered, no offence under Section 25(1-A) has been made out in this case as the explanation provided under Section 45(b) of the Arms Act is applicable in this case. He also submits that otherwise also the petitioner has been detained in custody for last 49 days and considering the Page No.# 4/6 period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, Mr. K.K. Das, on the other hand has produced the Case Diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025 and has vehemently opposed to grant the bail to the petitioner. He also submits that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioner. He however submits that the investigation is still going on and the release of the petitioner at this stage will hamper the investigation. He also submits that since production of the petitioner in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025 has been done in pursuant to the judicial order passed by the competent court, no requirement of furnishing notice under Section 47 in such case and therefore he submits that there has been no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner in this case. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and I have gone through the materials available on record including the case diary of Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025, which is produced before the court. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on different grounds, however, let us first examine the plea that no grounds of arrest were communicated to the petitioner when he was shown arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025. 12. It appears that before showing him arrest in the aforesaid case, i.e. Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025, the petitioner was detained in judicial custody in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 499/2025. It also appears that by order dated 17.06.2025, passed in Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025, learned Special Judicial Magistrate have allowed the prayer of the I.O. to show the present petitioner as arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025. Page No.# 5/6 Pursuant to the production warrant issued by the said court, he was produced before the said court on 18.06.2025, however, there is no materials on record to indicate that the petitioner was communicated with the grounds of arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025. 13. This court has observed in several earlier rulings including the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Habib Ahmed Vs. State of Assam (Supra) that the constitutional requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest is not waved, in the case where the petitioner was shown arrest and where he already in judicial custody. Even in the case, where the present petitioner has been shown arrest in a different case, he is entitled to know about the grounds of his arrest; his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India regarding communication of grounds of his arrest would also be there in the shown arrest case. 14. When a person is allowed to be shown arrested in some other case by a judicial order, it is the duty of the arresting authority to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to him. If the same is not done, it would be infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on that ground itself if the above named petitioner cooperate in the investigation, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of with Dispur P.S. Case No. 503/2025. 15. In view of above discussions, the petitioner named above is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a Page No.# 6/6 suitable surety each of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati with the following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer within 7(seven) days from the date of this order and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 16. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. 17. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant