Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010174322025 2025:GAU-AS:12559 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./ 2529/2025 SRI BIBHISHANG RONGHANG ALIAS BIBHISON RONGHANG ALIAS KARDOM SON OF HARISON RONGHANG R/O PANJAN CHOWKIHOLA P.S. CHOWKIHOLA DIST. KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782470 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. M KALITA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 11-09-2025 Heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of Page No.# 2/7 bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Bibhishang Ronghang @ Bibhison Ronghang @ Kardom who has been arrested in connection with Sessions Case Type 1 (SC T1) No. 04/2025 under Sections 302/120B IPC read with Sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024, pending before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel that the present petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 04.01.2025 and since last 8 months he is in custody. The case is already charge sheeted on 18.01.2025 against 5 numbers of arrested accused persons, but till date the prosecution could not examine any of the witnesses out of 50 cited witnesses. 5. He further submitted that 3 co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and considering the case of the petitioner in the same footing, his prayer for bail may be considered. However, being the permanent resident of the address locality, he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court and will face the trial, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 6. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel raised the issue of non furnishing of the ground of arrest while issuing the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo. Citing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it is submitted that furnishing of the ground of arrest is mandatorily required and due to non compliance of such mandatory requirement, violates the right of the accused petitioner guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 7. He further submitted that except the name, case number and Sections of Page No.# 3/7 law under which the petitioner was arrested, no other particulars of the offence being mentioned in detail in the grounds of arrest in writing, which is mandatorily required to be provided to the person who got arrested and it is the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and the accused has the right to be informed about the ground of his arrest in writing. But, here in the instant case, from the notice provided to the accused, it is seen that no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo, which may be a good ground for considering the bail of the present petitioner. Apart from that his period of long incarceration may also be considered and he may be allowed to go on bail. 8. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that it an admitted fact that there was no detail description of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner, but the notice was duly served on the accused petitioner under Section 50 CrPC as well as the arrest memo was also issued to him. The accused was also identified the witnesses when TIP was conducted. 9. It is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that the present petitioner was produced before the learned CJM on 05.01.2025 after his arrest and the learned Trial Court had also made observation in regards to compliance of Section 50 CrPC as well as 50 A CrPC and also perused the medical reports supported along with arrest memo and the forwarding report. Further, it reveals from the order that the petitioner was heard by the learned CJM before sending him for police remand as well as for the judicial custody. 10. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that it is not a case that the present petitioner was not aware about the offence which was alleged to have been committed by him, rather, he stated that he will engage a counsel and as Page No.# 4/7 his engaged counsel was absent the learned Trial Court had also appointed one LADC, Karbi Anglong for his defence and considering all these aspects, the learned CJM had passed the order of police remand and subsequently, the accused was forwarded to judicial custody. 11. Further, Mr. Baishya also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1201 and emphasized on para 20.1.20; 20.1.3; 20.1.4; 20.1.5; 20.4; 20.04.1; 20.4.2 and in para 20.04.1 it has been expressed the view that “mere filing of charge sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail and mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating materials gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. 12. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that there may be 50 numbers of witnesses but the case already been charge sheeted and the long list of witnesses cannot be a ground for bail, as claimed by the petitioner. 13. Mr. Baishya further submitted that the provisions does not prescribe a specific form or insist upon the written communication in every case and the substantial compliance may fulfill the object of furnishing the ground of arrest and the grounds of arrest not inflexible requirement in all circumstances. Paras 20.1.2; 20.1.3; 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 read as under:-- 20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that “no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice”. Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that “every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the Page No.# 5/7 arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest – but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 14. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that only considering the ground of long incarceration, long list of witnesses cannot be the ground for consideration of the bail, wherein the accused petitioner was arrested with the allegation of committing a brutal murder in conspiracy with the other accused persons. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and there may be every possibility of hampering or tampering with the witnesses of the case, if he is released on bail. 15. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Trial Court record and other annexures filed along with the petition. 16. It is a fact that the accused was behind the bar for more than 8 months and till date prosecution has not examined any of the witnesses out of 50 cited witnesses and it is also an admitted fact that while issuing the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo there is no detail description of Page No.# 6/7 the grounds of arrest, but the name of the accused and other particulars of the case are mentioned in the ground of arrest and the signature of the accused is also available in the notice issued to him under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo. 17. Further, after the incident the accused was not found in the address locality and he was subsequently, got arrested in connection with this case. 18. Thus from the entire circumstances of the case it cannot be denied that he was aware about the ground of arrest on which he was forwarded to police remand as well as to judicial custody. More so, the learned Addl. PP has rightly pointed out that while passing the order of police remand, the learned Trial Court had made a detail discussion about his arrest and also from its order it also reveals that he was heard by the learned CJM and after considering his submission one LADC was also appointed on his behalf and before sending him to police remand the LADC was also heard who was appointed by the Court on behalf of the petitioner. 19. So, considering all these aspects of the case, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner was not aware about the incident or grounds of arrest on which allegation he was arrested and subsequently forwarded to police remand as well as to judicial custody. 20. Further considering the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Darshan (supra) it is seen that there may not be any ground of arrest in case of person arrested on warrant and it is seen that it is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Darshan (supra) as referred above, that substantial compliance may serve the purpose of communication of the ground of arrest and in the present case, it is seen that he was fully aware Page No.# 7/7 about the ground of arrest which was communicated to him. 21. So considering all aspects of the case, it cannot be held that the petitioner was in dark about the reasons or grounds of his arrest, rather, he was fully aware about the same and also offered the opportunity of hearing before the learned Trial Court. 22. Considering all these and the gravity of the offence and also considering the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the vital witnesses, I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail solely on the ground of long incarceration. 23. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Sri Bibhishang Ronghang @ Bibhison Ronghang @ Kardom in connection with Sessions Case Type 1 (SC T1) No. 04/2025 under Sections 302/120B IPC read with Sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024 stands rejected. 24. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant