Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010229832025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3374/2025 LON NAG @ HARINDER NAG S/O. LT. DHANIRAM NAG, R/O. GINGIA T.E. NILBARI LINE, P/O. GINGIA, PIN-784184, P/S. GINGIA, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP BY THE PP ASSAM 2:PRIYANKA TANTI W/O. SHRI RAHUL TANTI R/O. GINGIA T.E. NILBARI LINE P/O. GINGIA PIN-784184 P/S. GINGIA DIST. BISWANATH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS M NIROLA, MR. P BORDOLOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, Amicus Curiae, (R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 20.11.2025 Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the accused/applicant. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for granting bail Page No.# 2/4 to the accused/applicant in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 26/2025 registered under Section 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 pending before the Court of the learned Special Judge, Biswanath, Assam. 3. The gist of the case as has been narrated in the FIR lodged by the informant before the Gingia Police Station alleging that at about 3 pm on 10.03.2025, her minor sister aged about 10 years was lured by the accused/applicant and after taking her to his house forcefully raped her. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Gingia P.S. Case No.29/2025 under Section 65(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered. 5. The accused/applicant was arrested on 11.03.2025 and since then for the last 255 days he is behind the bars. The learned counsel for the accused/applicant has sought for the bail of the accused/applicant on two grounds : (i) Firstly, the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS did not contain any grounds of arrest of the accused person at the time of arrest. (ii) Secondly, the notice to the wife of the accused/applicant under Section 48 of the BNSS did not contain any grounds of arrest of the accused/applicant. 6. The learned counsel in this connection has referred to the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 5 SCC 799 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934. He Page No.# 3/4 submits that the aforesaid judicial pronouncements have settled the law and made it mandatory that in the event of non-compliance of the provisions Section 47 and 48 respectively, it shall make the arrest illegal and in that event, the accused person would be liable to be released on bail. 7. The learned APP on the other hand submits that the case involves a serious and heinous offence of rape of a minor girl and the trial in the instant case is progressing in reasonable pace. He further submits that since the notices under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS have already been issued to the accused/applicant as well as his wife, at the time of the arrest, there is no pre- judice caused to the accused/applicant in the instant case. 8. On perusal of the records, it is noticed that notice under Section 47of BNSS does not contain any grounds of arrest. The same only contains the name of the person, father’s name, phone number and the name of his village. Other than the aforesaid, no information or grounds could be seen from the notice under Section 47 of BNSS. Similarly, on a careful perusal of the notice under Section 48 of BNSS, it is seen that the ground of arrest has been mentioned only as “FIR Name Accused”. Along with the same, only the signature of the accused/applicant and his wife are found in the notice. The aforesaid finding of the contents of the notice makes it very clear that the grounds of arrest of the accused person was neither provided to the arrested person nor his wife and thereby, violating the mandatory conditions of Section 47 and the 48 of BNSS. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings and taking into account the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard in the aforementioned cases of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that while arresting the Page No.# 4/4 accused/applicant, the mandates of Section 47 and 48 were not complied with, which makes the arrest of the accused/applicant unsustainable in law and illegal. 10. In view of the prima facie finding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/applicant is liable to be released on bail at this stage. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused/applicant shall be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Biswanath, subject to the following conditions : (i) The accused/applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as when required by the Trial Court; (ii) The accused/applicant shall not try to get in touch either with the victim girl or with the informant for any reason, whatsoever; (iii) The accused/applicant 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 such person from disclosing such facts in the trial pending against the accused/applicant. 11. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the instant bail application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant