Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010205982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3010/2025 KHANINDRA KALITA @ JYOTISH SON OF LATE HARESWAR KALITA R/O 105, KAMARGAON, DIPILA CHOWKA, PATHONGHAT P.S. SIPAJHAR,DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM, PIN- 784144 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N RAY, N N HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 19.09.2025 Heard Mr. N. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Page No.# 2/4 (BNSS), 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with Sonari PS Case No. 64/2025 registered under Sections 111(2)/113(2)(b)/113(3)/113(4)/147/148/149/308(4) of the BNSS, 2023 read with Sections 10/13/16(1)(b)/17/18A/18B/20/39/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 5/6 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. In the FIR of the present case dated 25.06.2025, it is alleged inter alia that members of the banned organization ULFA(I) have been indulging in unlawful activities, such as, recruitment, extortion and attempts to destabilize the State. The present petitioner was arrested on 09.07.2025 on the basis of material unearthed by the Police. It is alleged in this case that the petitioner had acquaintance with one ULFA(I) cadre, James Asom. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrested merely on suspicion because of his arrest earlier in Sipajhar PS Case No. 14/2021. It is further submitted that 14 numbers of similarly placed co-accused persons in the present case have been released on bail by the learned Special Judge, Charaideo by Order dated 26.08.2025. 5. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted with reference to the Case Diary (CD) that there is material to show that the petitioner was in frequent contact with leaders of the ULFA(I) through Mobile Phone and various social media applications and helped the leaders/cadres of the banned outfit to carry out anti-national activities. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has also pointed out the statements of the co-accused which implicates the petitioner in carrying out subversive activities in the present case. 6. On perusal of the CD, it does appear that there are some materials against the petitioner but that is in the form of statement of co-accused which in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592 cannot be taken into consideration. 7. Moreover, on perusal of the CD, it is seen that although notice under Section 47 was being served on the accused/petitioner stating the ground of arrest therein, as far as compliance Page No.# 3/4 with Section 48 of BNSS is concerned, there exists only a WT Message to the O.C, Sipajhar PS from the O.C., Sonari PS whereby reference to Sonari PS Case No. 64/2025 alongwith the penal sections has been made and request has been made to inform the family members of the petitioner of his arrest in connection with the aforesaid case. 8. Apart from the fact that there is no return WT Message confirming the communication of such information to the family members of the petitioner, the grounds of arrest has not been stated in the said WT Message. 9. It is trite that mere information of the arrest does not amount to furnishing the grounds of arrest. 10. It is the mandate of the law as held by the by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025 INSC 162 that the grounds of arrest has to be furnished in writing to the family members of the relatives/nominated persons of the arrested accused and violation of the same would vitiate the arrest. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any substantial compliance with the aforesaid requirement has been made, which has resulted in demonstrable prejudice to the accused. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the prayer for bail is allowed. 12. The accused/petitioner shall be released on bail with a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned District & Sessions Judge, Charaideo in connection with the aforesaid case. 13. It is further provided that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. 14. It is also provided that the petitioner shall not leave the district without prior permission of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Assam. 15. The Bail Application stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant