Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010227782025 2025:GAU-AS:14536 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3305/2025 SRI ANUP KUMAR PATWARI ALIAS PATOWARY S/O-- LATE MANGAL CHANDRA PATOWARI HOUSE NO. 402, NEAR GANESH MANDIR KAHILIPARA ROAD, GANESHGURI PS- DISPUR DIST.- KAMRUP (M) PERMANENT RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4, GOURIPUR TOWN P.S. GOURIPUR, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. 2:WSI (P) PRANITA GOGOI (INFORMANT) C/O- O/C PALTAN BAZAR POLICE STATION PS. PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M). 3:THE VICTIM X HER GUARDIANS NAME WITHHELD NOTICE TO BE SERVED THROUGH O/C PALTAN BAZAR PS GUWAHATI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MS. N PODDAR,MR. C SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR S NAWAZ(AMICUS CURIAE, R3) Page No.# 2/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 29.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Todi, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Poddar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae representing the victim girl, i.e. respondent No. 3. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Anup Kumar Patwari @Patowary, who has been detained behind the bars since 09.08.2025(for last 80 days), in connection with Sessions Special Case No. 192/2025, arising out of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 229/2025, under Sections 65(1)/87 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 08.08.2025 one Pranati Gogoi, SI of Police of Paltan Bazar Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Paltan Bazar Police Station, that an information was received from the Police control room at about 9:50 PM on 08.08.2025 that a person has been detained, along with one minor girl, who were involved in sexual activities inside the cinema hall of Page No.# 3/11 Roodraksh Mall and accordingly, the Police team went to the palace of occurrence and apprehended the said person (the present petitioner), along with the minor girl. 4. It is alleged in the FIR that the petitioner forcefully undressed the victim girl and touched her private parts and indulged in sexual assault. 5. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, investigation was initiated and ultimately, on completion of investigation charge sheet was laid against the present petitioner under Sections 65(1)/87 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 6. Mr. B.P. Todi, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though petitioner was served with notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, same was not in conformity with the statutory as well as constitutional mandate, as it does not contain the grounds of arrest and basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the said case. 7. He submits that after laying of the charge sheet the petitioner moved an application for bail before the Court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup(M) mainly on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. However, he, submits that the Trial Court rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner Page No.# 4/11 taking a wrong view that the mandate of Sections 47 and 48 has been complied with in this case. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a settled proposition of law mainly after clarification in this regard by the Apex Court in the case of “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” reported in “(2025) 5 SCC 799” that the communication of grounds of arrest in writing is a mandatory requirement and non-compliance of this mandatory requirement would vitiate the arrest and would be a sufficient ground in itself for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. 9. He submits that in the instant case, though notice under Section 47 was served on the petitioner, however, under the heading “grounds of arrest”, nothing has been stated about the basic facts or about the accusation against the petitioner in this case. He submits that the Apex Court has clarified the distinction between the grounds of arrest and the reasons for arrest. 10. He submits the reasons that the arrested person is an FIR named accused and that if he is not detained, there is a possibility of repeating the said offence and similar other reasons which have been stated in the notice under Section 47 are distinguishable from what is meant by the phrase “grounds of arrest” as clarified by the Apex Court. Page No.# 5/11 11. In support of his submissions, he has cited another ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,” reported in “(2024) 8SCC 254,” wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows:- “48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase “reasons for arrest” and “grounds of arrest”. The “reasons for arrest” as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters viz. to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tampering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to the investigating officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the “grounds of arrest” would be Page No.# 6/11 required to contain all such details in hand of the investigating officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the “grounds of arrest” would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the “reasons of arrest” which are general in nature.” 12. He further submits that as apparently neither in the notice served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNS, 2023 nor in notice served on one Jamir Hussain, under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, the accusation against the present petitioner has been stated nor the basic facts which necessitated his arrest in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 229/2025 has been stated therein. Mere serving of notice purported to be a notice under Sections 47 and 48 would not conform to the statutory as well as constitutional mandate in this regard. He, therefore, submits that on that count the petitioner is entitled to go on bail. 13. On the other hand, the the learned Additional Page No.# 7/11 Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State of Assam has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the offence involved in this case is of heinous nature and there has been substantial compliance of requirement of Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 in this case. 14. He submits that same has been clearly reflected in the order of the learned Special Judge, when the present petitioner was produced before the said Court. He has also submitted that the petitioner was aware about the accusation made against him and he has also stated that he will engage counsel of his own choice and therefore, there has been substantial compliance of statutory as well as constitutional mandate in this regard. He, therefore, submits that insistence on communicating everything in writing may not be necessary in this case. In support of his submissions, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc.” reported in “2025 SCC Online SC 1702” wherein the Apex Court has observed that judicial precedence have clarified that substantial compliance of the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest to an arrested person immediately after his arrest is sufficient unless, demonstrable prejudice is shown. 15. He submits that as there is no dispute regarding receipt of notice by the petitioner as well as by the person Page No.# 8/11 nominated by him in this case and as there has been substantial compliance of the requirement under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner is not entitled to get bail on that count. 16. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae representing the victim girl has fairly submitted that the Apex Court has clarified that the observations made in the case of “State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan etc.” (supra) is in respect of a case involving cancellation of bail and, therefore, same is distinguishable from the other cases, where, the Apex Court held that the communication of grounds of arrest in writing is mandatory. He submits that the Apex Court in a recent case, i.e., “Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. Vs. The State REP. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr.” (Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025) has discussed all the leading cases regarding the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest to an arrestee and has confirmed view of the Apex Court in the following cases as the right view:- 1. “Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India,” reported in “(2024) 7 SCC 576”; 2. “Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,” (supra); and Page No.# 9/11 3. “Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another” (supra). 17. He further submits that any explanation by the Court before whom the arrestee is produced can never be an adequate compliance for furnishing grounds of arrest at the time of securing an accused. He submits that said observations have been made by the Apex Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. Vs. The State REP. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr” (supra). 18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and have gone through the records as well as also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides. 19. Though accusation made against the petitioner in this case is grave in nature, however, that in itself may not be a reason for relaxing the compliance of mandatory constitutional requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee at the time of his arrest. 20. A bare perusal of notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 served on the petitioner would reveal that it is devoid of the accusation made against the petitioner in the FIR, on the basis of which Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 229/2025 was registered. Though under the column grounds of arrest, various reasons are stated as to why the arrest of Page No.# 10/11 the accused has been made, however in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of“Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi,” (supra) quoted herein before in the foregoing paragraphs, said reasons are distinguishable from what is meant by the phrase “grounds of arrest”. As communicating grounds of arrest would mean communicating the accusation against the arrestee and basic facts which necessitated his arrest, same are not there in the notices issued to the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 as well that under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 . 21. In view of the judgement of the Apex Court referred above, more particularly, in the case of “Ahmed Mansoor & Ors. Vs. The State REP. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr” (supra), it is now a settled proposition of law that communicating grounds of arrest in writing to an arrestee at the time of his arrest is a mandatory constitutional requirement and any violation of the same by the arresting authority would vitiate the arrest itself and which would be sufficient ground for allowing such an arrestee to go on bail. 22. For the reasons aforesaid, the above-named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Kamrup(M), Guwahati with following conditions Page No.# 11/11 that:- i. That the petitioner shall cooperate in the trial of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 229/2025, under Sections 65(1)/87 of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court; iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present petitioner; iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court; v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and vi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 23. With the above observation, this bail application is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant