Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010192192025 2025:GAU-AS:13213 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2784/2025 HAREN PATGIRI S/O BHADESWAR PATGIRI R/O VILL- KOTHALMURI HAT, P.S. PATACHARKLUCHI DIST. BAJALI (BARPETA), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, MS N SULTANA,MS S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 22-09-2025 Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also head Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/9 2. This is an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Sessions Case No. 200/2023 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2479/2022 u/s 392/302/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code R/W Section 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 5. 3. Scanned copy of the case record has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Ms. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He got arrested in connection with the case only on the basis of a statement made by co-accused on 16.02.2023 and since then he is in custody. Case has already been charge-sheeted and charge is also framed on 12.01.2024 u/s 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 25(1)(a) of Arms Act. She further submitted that the prosecution has cited 22 nos. of witnesses but, as on today only 5 nos. of witnesses could be examined by the prosecution. 5. Ms. Nargis further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioner or the arm which has been used in commission of the alleged offence. There is no direct allegation against the present accused/petitioner. She further submitted that there is no evidence against the present petitioner in the deposition of the five PWs who have already been examined by the prosecution. 6. Ms. Nargis accordingly submitted that considering his long period of incarceration i.e. 2 years 7 months 6 days the bail may be considered and apart Page No.# 3/9 from that, she raised the issue of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest while issuing the notice u/s 50 & 50A Cr.PC. 7. In this context also, Ms. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioner, cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 8. Ms. Nargis further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 660 and she emphasized in paragraphs 51, 52, 53 & 54 of the said judgment wherein it has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that keeping the accused/petitioner for an unlimited period of time in custody with a hope of speedy disposal of the case would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 of the said judgment reads as under:- “52. This Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another 6 further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. 53. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized Page No.# 4/9 documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. 54. As observed by this Court in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 9. Ms. Nargis further relied on the decision of the learned Division Bench of this Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234/2025 and relied on paragraphs 11 & 12 of the said judgment wherein the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest u/s 50 & 50(1) of the Cr.PC has been considered and it has been held that requirement was to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective, failing which, the arrest may be rendered illegal. 10. Accordingly, Ms. 10. Accordingly, Ms. Nargis submitted that without going to the other detail of the merit of the case, the bail petition of the present petitioner may be considered on the grounds of long incarceration as well as on the ground of non-furnishing reasons/grounds of arrest to the petitioner by issuing notices u/s 50/50A Cr.PC. However, the petitioner being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, he will regularly appear before the learned Sessions Judge and will contest the case accordingly, if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 11. Mr. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that this is a very heinous nature of case wherein one person was brutally murdered with a conspiracy among the 4/5 nos. of accused/persons. He further submitted that earlier bail application for the present petitioner was rejected on 15.05.2025, when only 4 witnesses could be examined by the prosecution. But, thereafter one more witness has been examined by the Page No.# 5/9 prosecution and thus 5 witnesses have already been examined in the present case. The case is proceeding in good pace and the charges framed in the present case on 12.01.2024 and since then, 5 nos. of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. 12. Mr. Baishya further submitted that the present accused/petitioner was arrested on the strength of production warrant issued against him and he was accordingly arrested on 16.02.2023. The present accused/petitioner is also involved in similar nature of case and he was already arrested in connection with Changsari P.S. Case No. 462/2022 wherein also, the allegation of dacoity and Arms Act are involved. 13. Mr. Baishya further submitted that from the record itself it is seen that at the time of production of the accused on 16.02.2023 on the strength of production warrant it is seen that he was heard and on his behalf one Legal Aid Counsel was also appointed by the learned Additional CJM and after hearing the parties and considering the grounds of arrest, the present accused/petitioner was also sent for police remand. It is also found that he was also involved in similar kind of offence in connection with other case. Thus, it is not the case that he was arrested without being informed the grounds of arrest, which is required u/s 50, 50A Cr.PC. But, it is seen that he was heard by the learned Trial Court below and only after the satisfaction of the Court and hearing the accused he was sent for police custody and thereafter for judicial remand. Thus, the nature and category under which the accused/petitioner was arrested was different and he was fully aware about the nature of allegation brought against him at the time of his production on the strength of production warrant. 14. Mr. Baishya accordingly relied in a case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702 and emphasized on Page No.# 6/9 paragraphs 20.1.3, 20.1.4 & 20.1.5 of the said judgment wherein it has been expressed the view that mere absence of the written grounds of arrest does not ifso facto and render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. The above referred paragraphs reads as under:- “20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the 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 Haryana22, 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. 15. Mr. Baishya further submitted that detail examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing the order of bail application. In that context also he emphasized on paragraphs 20.2.2. and 20.2.3 of the above referred judgment which reads as under:- “20.2.2. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote25, this Court held as under: “Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself”. 20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav26, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings.” 16. Relying on the same judgment it is also submitted by Mr. Baishya for filing of the charge-sheet or lengthy list of witnesses does not justify the grant of bail and the gravity of the offence and the hampering or tampering of the evidence Page No.# 7/9 will also be considered while passing the order of bail. In that context he relied also on para nos. 20.4.1, 20.4.2 of the said judgment which read as under:- “20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. 20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that: "The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..." 17. He further submitted that the judgment which is relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case and in the instant case of Manash Sasodia (supra), in para 55 of the order it reveals that the listed nos. of witnesses are 493 and for completion of the examination of 493 witnesses may require a considerable period of time. But, here in the instant case there are only 22 nos. of listed witnesses, out of which, 5 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. 18. Relying on the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Baishya that the prayer of the present petitioner may not be considered at this stage considering the nature and gravity of the offence as well as considering the probability of hampering or tampering of the witnesses of the prosecution. 19. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and the other annexures filed along with the petition. It is a fact that the accused- petitioner is in custody since more than 2 years 7 months and till date prosecution could examine only 5 witnesses out of 22 nos. of witnesses. But, in the same time it cannot be denied that the charges against the Page No.# 8/9 accused/petitioner was framed on 12.01.2024 and within one and half year the prosecution could examine 5 nos. of witnesses. However it took considerable period for completion of 5 nos. of witnesses by the prosecution. But, considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court only, filing of the charge-sheet as well as the list of witnesses cannot be sole ground for considering the bail application wherein the allegation against the accused/petitioner is heinous in nature, where a victim was brutally killed in broad day light in the conspiracy of 4/5 accused/persons, including the present petitioner. Thus, the period of incarceration only cannot be considered at this stage and it cannot be considered as in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 0 Supreme(SC) 104], wherein it is held that “if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be question as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law.” 20. Coming to the compliance of Section 50/50A Cr.PC, it is rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the present accused/petitioner was produced only on the strength of the production warrant and from the record it reveals that there are substantial compliance of Section 50 Cr.PC wherein the case was heard and in absence of his engaged counsel one Legal Aid Counsel was also appointed on his behalf to defend the case before sending the accused/petitioner to the police remand as well as judicial remand. More so, from the order passed by the learned Court below it also reveals that after being satisfied the grounds/reasons of arrest, the learned Trial Court below has allowed the prayer for police remand as well as the judicial remand and the Page No.# 9/9 accused was also heard through his Legal Aid Counsel before passing any order and thus it cannot be said that he was not aware about the grounds of arrest and also it cannot be held that there was default in compliance of Section 50/50A Cr.PC. 21. In view of above discussion and considering all the aspects of the case including the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find that the probability of hampering or tampering of the evidence of the further witnesses cannot be denied at this stage and at the same time considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it justified to allow the accused to go on bail at this stage and accordingly the same stands rejected. JUDGE Comparing Assistant