Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010163402025 2025:GAU-AS:11963 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2397/2025 BHULA TANTI ALIAS BHOLA TANTI AND 2 ORS. SON OF LATE PHUKAN TANTI RESIDENT OF SITALPATTY, 18 NO. SOKRETING PATHAR GAON P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 2: BIKASH TASA @ CHOTU S/O LATE MOHINDAR TASA RESIDENT OF SITALPATTY 18 NO. SOKRETING PATHAR GAON P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM 3: TULKU LIMBOO @ TUKLU LIMBOO @ RAJA SON OF SRI RAJU LIMBOO RESIDENT OF SITALPATTY 18 NO. SOKRETING PATHAR GAON P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM ANR. REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. RINKU SAHANI W/O SRI SHANKAR SAHANI R/O SITALPATTY 8 NO. SOKRETING PATHAR GAON P.O. AND P.S. DOOMDOOMA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 PIN-786159 MOBILE NO. 7002158277 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. I K BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS A DAS, LEGAL AID COUNSEL FOR R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 03.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By filing this application U/S 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioners, namely, 1. Sri Bhula Tanti @ Bhola Tanti, 2. Bikash Tasa @ Chotu, 3. Sri Tulku Limboo @ Tuklu Limboo @ Raja, have sought for bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 08(T)/2025 under Section 376 D of the IPC, R/W Section 6 of the POCSO Act, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge(POCSO), Tinsukia corresponding to (Doomdooma P.S Case No.202/2024). 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 26.11.2024 at 10 PM, the complainant Smti Rinku Sahani (the Respondent No 2 herein) lodged an FIR before the Doomdooma Police Station alleging inter alia that about 7 months ago some culprits of the same locality namely Bhola Tanti, Aditya Yadav, Bikash Page No.# 3/8 Sahani, Krishna Prasad, Sahil Prasad, Bikash Tasa @ Chotu and Tulku Limbu called the daughter of the complainant namely "Miss X" (name withheld) aged about 14 years from the playground after holding her face and eyes with cloth and committed gang rape upon her. They also threatened the victim that if she disclosed the matter to anyone, they would kill her and also burn her house. As the complainant noticed that her daughter's health was deteriorating day by day, she was taken to hospital and the complainant got to know that her daughter was pregnant by 23 weeks and 4 days. Hence, the case. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused/petitioners were arrested on 26.11.2024 and were produced before the Court of learned Special Judge, POCSO, Tinsukia on 27.11.2024 and since then they have been in judicial custody. It is further stated that the accused persons have nothing to do with the offences as alleged in the FIR and accused persons are no way connected with alleged offence and they have been arrested merely on the ground of suspicion and have been falsely implicated in the instant case. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that that in the present case, the petitioners were arrested on 26.11.2024 and the petitioner no. 3 was served an Arrest Memo on the same day by the police. Further, notices under Section 50 CrPC have also been issued to all the petitioners. Moreover, notices u/s 50A CrPC have also been issued to the family member of the petitioners thereby intimating them about their arrest. However, in all such notices and Page No.# 4/8 the arrest memo issued to the petitioners, no grounds of arrest have been mentioned by the police. It is the contention of the petitioners that non-mentioning of the grounds of arrest in the Arrest Memo as well as in the notices issued u/s 50 & 50A CrPC renders the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioners invalid and in such cases the arrest becomes vitiated. 6. Per contra, Mr. Baishya, learned counsel appearing for the State, has opposed in granting bail to the petitioners. However, he has admitted that the grounds of arrest have not been mentioned in the arrest memo or the Section 50 notice issued to the petitioners. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the trial court record, it is an admitted fact that the notice served to the petitioners u/s 50 Cr.P.C. as well as arrest memo reflect that no grounds of arrest have been communicated to the petitioners at the time of their arrest. 8. In the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs Union of India, reported in (2023) SCC Online (SC) 1244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the written grounds of arrest must be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. If the same is not complied with, the arrest would be in violation of Section 19(1) of the PMLA Act, 2002. Consequently, the arrest and the subsequent remand of the arrested person cannot be sustained. 9. In another case vide Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 934, wherein it has been categorically held that the law laid down in the case of Pankaj Page No.# 5/8 Bansal (supra) would be squarely applicable in cases under the UA (P) Act or for that matter any other offences. The accused has fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest and non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 10. In the case vide (2025) SCC Online SC 240 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma, it was held as follows– “Once a court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. Therefore, when arrest is illegal or vitiated, bail cannot be denied on the grounds of non-fulfillment of twin tests under clause (ii) of sub-section 1 of Section 45 of PMLA.” 11. In the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 269, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has Page No.# 6/8 referred the case of Pankaj Bansal, (2024) 7 SCC 576 and the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and the Court held as follows – “28. The language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India regarding the communication of the grounds is exactly the identical. Neither of the constitutional provisions require that the “grounds” of “arrest” or “detention”, as per the case may be, must be communicated in writing. Thus, interpretation to this important facet of the fundamental right as made by the Constitution Bench while examining the scope of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India would ipso facto apply to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India insofar as the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest is concerned. 29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non- compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be.” Page No.# 7/8 12. Situated thus, the settled principle of law is that arrested persons must be informed about the grounds of their arrest and detention which is mandatory in nature. Article 22 safeguards the individual against arbitrary arrest and detention. It ensures that no person can be arrested or detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest or detention. In the instant case, there is no reflection in Section 50 Cr.P.C. notice or the arrest memo served to the petitioners that the accused petitioners were informed about the grounds of their arrest in connection with POCSO Case No. 08(T)/2025. Under such backdrop, this Court by following the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above, is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the petitioners, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with POCSO Case No. 08(T)/2025 under Section 376 D of the IPC, R/W Section 6 of the POCSO Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) each with two suitable sureties each of the like amount, out of which, one of the sureties should be a Government employee of the State of Assam, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge(POCSO), Tinsukia. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions that the petitioners: (a) shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge(POCSO), Tinsukia, Assam without prior written permission from him/her till disposal of the case; Page No.# 8/8 (b) shall regularly attend the trial court and cooperate with the court for early disposal of the case; and (c) shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court. 14. The observation made by the Court is for the purpose of this bail application only, not on merits of the case. 15. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of bail. 16. The bail application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant