Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040017522025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/131/2025 Smti Anima Ingo Wife of Marli Ingo, resident of Village Eyi, PO and PS Aalo, West Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh, presently residing at Economic and Statistics Colony Itanagar, PO RKMH and PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791111 VERSUS The State of AP represented by the Special Public Prosecutor Advocate for the Petitioner : Reken Ingo, Jambey Tsering Kee,Kipa Yabi,Jumken Ete,Aruna Rai Advocate for the Respondent : Loma Kurdu, Spl.PP (SIT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 13-11-2025 Heard Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT. 2. Invoking the Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, the accused petitioner, herein, Shri Marli Ingo is seeking regular bail in connection with Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 77/2025, under Section 308(2)/61 BNS, 2023 read with Page No.# 2/5 Section 13 UAP Act. Subsequently, upon investigation being taken over by the SIT, the case was re-registered as SIT Case No.PHQ/CB-PS/NRJ/FIR- 77/2025. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is not going into the merits of the matter and seeks bail on the ground of non- compliance with the requirement under Section 47/48 of the BNSS pertaining to the notices at the time of arrest of the accused applicant and in the context of the laws laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC online SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the copy of the notice under Section 47/48 of BNSS, which was given at the time of his arrest. It is also mentioned in the notice that the same was also given to the brother of accused, namely, Shri Reken Ingo. The grounds of arrest were mentioned as follows: ”Your are being arrested for your alleged involvement in the commission of an above mention offences as per the information and investigation made so far, as there are reasonable grounds to believe that your arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of further offence, ensure your proper identification, secure your presence during investigation and trial, prevent tampering with evidence or influence witnesses, and for the purposes of a fair, complete, and lawful investigation.” 5. Case diary has been received. Page No.# 3/5 6. Mr. L. Kurdu, learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT contends that while the investigation is going on, it has revealed significant materials against the accused persons, including the present petitioner. 7. Status report is also submitted for perusal of the Court. 8. With regard to the contention of the petitioner’s side, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, SIT fairly submits that upon perusing the relevant portions of the case diary, the notice under Section 47/48 of BNSS, 2023 has been found and it is the same notice which has been annexed with the petition. 9. In this case, it appears that a single notice has been given to both the accused as well as to his relative/brother in compliance with the Section 47/48 of BNSS. If the contents of such notice meet the constitutional standard, giving the same notice to the accused as well as relative might not be a fatal irregularity. However, it is always desirable and necessary to mark/furnish 2(two) different copies to the accused and to his relative under Section 47/48 of the BNSS, 2023 respectively. In the instant case, upon perusing the grounds as narrative above, I am of the considered view that it is not a case of complete non-compliance as the some grounds have been given. However, most of the grounds given appears to be generic in nature rather than specific to the accused concerned. In terms of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the grounds of arrest in sufficient detail and specific to the accused are Page No.# 4/5 required to be provided to the accused at the time of his arrest and to his relative. It has been held that this is necessary to comply with the provisions of article of 22(1) of the Constitution. 10. The aforesaid case laws have also laid down that in the event of non- compliance or compliance which does not meet the stipulated standards, the subsequent detention of the accused would be untenable, entitling him to bail. It has also been held that such an entitlement to bail would prevail even if there is statutory restriction such as Section 37 of the NDPS Act. In the instant case, the penal provision of UAP Act, given at Section 13 and therefore, the rigorous of 43 D 5 proviso of the UAP Act shall not apply, as the said regard in terms of that section, applies only to the penal provision of the UAP Act falling in chapter-4 and chapter-6, starting with Section 15 of the UAP Act, which defines the Terrorist Act. 11. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid grounds provided to the accused would fall short of the stipulated standards in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, I find it necessary to grant bail to the accused, at this stage, on those technical grounds. 12. Accordingly, the accused is allowed to go on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court and subject to the following conditions: 1) That the accused shall cooperate with the remaining investigation. He shall be available for the trial in the event of charge sheet and commencement of the trial; 2) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper with the Page No.# 5/5 evidences. 3) That the accused shall not tried to influence or threat anyone in connection with the case in any manner. 13. Violation of any bail conditions might entail cancellation of the bail. 14. In terms of the above, the bail application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant