Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010237622025 2025:GAU-AS:15379 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3509/2025 MUKSIDUL HOQUE ALIAS MUKSIDUL ISLAM SONOF MD ABDUL SUBAN, VILLAGE KUHUMTOLI, PS SAMAGURI, DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. G BORAH, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 13.11.2025 Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- applicant. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, representing the State respondent. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for granting bail to the accused-applicant in connection with Samaguri P.S. Case No. Page No.# 2/4 188/2025, registered under Section 108 of the BNS. 3. The brief fact of the case is that an FIR dated 21.08.2025 was lodged by one Idrish Ali of Kahilihamari village, the father of the victim girl, alleging inter alia that the accused-applicant has mentally harassed his daughter due to which the victim girl took poison. It was alleged that the victim girl later on died on 17.08.2025, after consuming poison. 4. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered Samaguri P.S. Case No. 188/2025, under the aforesaid Sections and the accused-applicant was arrested on 08.09.2025. Since then, the accused-applicant is in judicial custody. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the police authorities had prepared the Arrest Memo in complete violation of Section 36 of the BNSS, without attestation of any witnesses and without the same being counter-signed by the arrested person. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that a complete violation of Section 36 of BNSS has been committed by the police authority, which is in violation of the mandatory requirements of law as enumerated under Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel further submits that though notices under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS were issued to the accused-applicant, the same did not contain the grounds of his arrest as well as the language of the notice was in English, which was not understandable by the accused-applicant. In view of the aforesaid non-compliance of the statutory provisions by the arresting authority, the learned counsel submits that the accused-applicant should be granted bail on these grounds alone. 6. On the other hand, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that substantial compliance of Sections 36, 47 & 48 have been done in the instant case and no prejudice has been caused to the accused-applicant on his arrest. The learned counsel submits that mere lapse of procedural aspect in arrest of the accused-applicant should not be the ground for granting bail to the accused-applicant, when the accused-applicant is charged with a heinous crime under the POCSO Act. Page No.# 3/4 7. This Court has gone through the materials placed before this Court as well as perused the Grounds of Arrest provided to the accused-applicant. 8. It may be relevant at this stage to reproduce Section 36 of BNSS, which is as follows: - “36- Procedure of arrest and duties of officer making arrest. Every officer while making an arrest shall- (a) Bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification; (b) Prepare a memorandum of arrest which shall be- (i) Attested by at least one witness, who is a member of family of the person arrested or a respectable member of the locality where the arrest is made; (ii) Counter signed by the person arrested; and (c) Inform the person arrested, unless the memorandum is attested by a member of his family, that he has arrived to have a relative or any other person named by him to be informed of his arrest.” 9. This Court has gone through the materials available in the Case Diary and has found that the arrest-memo, under Section 36 of the BNSS, neither contains the signature of the accused-applicant nor signature of any attested witness. The notice under Section 47 though provides a sentence on ground of arrest, in view of this Court, taking into account the offence allegedly committed, the grounds do not seem to be reasonably provided in the instant case. The same is also the case as regards the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 10. Taking into account the settled principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Anr, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 269 and Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC Page No.# 4/4 254, this Court is of the considered view that while arresting the accused-applicant, the mandates of settled law have not been complied with and therefore, it merits the accused-applicant to be released on bail with certain conditions for the ends of justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid finding, the accused-applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with a surety of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Nagaon, subject to the following conditions: - (1) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and fully co-operate in the investigation of the case. (2) The accused-applicant shall not hamper the investigation nor tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case. 12. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. Case Diary so received to be sent back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant