Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010277912025 2025:GAU-AS:17679 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4050/2025 JAHIDUL ISLAM ALIAS ZAHIDUL ISLAM S/O- RAHMAT ALI. VILL- TARAKANDI. P.S.- KALGACHIA. DIST- BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-781309. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P., ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ROSHID, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 18.12.2025 Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioner, namely, Jahidul Islam @ Zahidul Islam, praying for grant Page No.# 2/4 of bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.209/2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023. Thereby they were arrested on 02.12.2025. 3. An FIR was lodged on 01.12.2025 in the Hatigaon Police Station by SI of Police D. Sarma. The four persons named in the FIR namely, Jahidul Islam, Shainuddin Sikdar, Md. Aynal Hoque and Porokh Jyoti Gogoi. There is detail narration in the FIR and the gist of the allegation is that the accused persons are involved in cyber fraud activities and cyber crimes using some dubious apps. 4. The case diary has been received. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and that they are being implicated on suspicion. However, the main contention of the petitioner side is that there is infirmity in the notice under Section 48 BNSS inasmuch as, the notice was issued to Rabbul Islam and one sifted one son of Rahnaf Ali, Tarakandi, P.S. Kalgachia. However the signature on the notice is one Rafiqul Islam at two places. 5. It is submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that investigation is in progress and investigation so far revealed materials lending support to the allegations and submits that the kind of offences committed are very detrimental to innocent people and the police through their investigation is trying to nab the network. 6. The learned Addl. P.P. fairly submits that upon perusing the case diary he has found that the notice under Section 48 BNSS was addressed to Rabbul Islam but the notice was shown to be received by Rafiqul Islam. 7 It appears that no materials have come to notice that the said Rabbul Islam and Rafiqul Islam one and the said person and both are alias name of one Page No.# 3/4 another. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. Vs. The State Rep. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police & Anr in Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025. The relevant para is reproduced herein below:- “In State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc.(supra) the facts governing are quite different. It was a case dealing with the cancellation of bail where the charge sheet had been filed and the grounds of detention were served immediately. This Court has, in fact, given its approval to the decision in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.(supra). Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (supra), this Court was pleased to hold in para 27 that the object underlying the provision that the grounds of arrest should be communicated has been explained by this Court in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra). Therefore, the law as laid down in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr (supra) has been approved and reiterated in the abovesaid decisions.” 9. It is well settled by now that the notices under Section 47/48 BNSS (earlier Section 50/50(a) Cr.P.C) are not meant to be empty formalities and that the essential ingredients of the said notices have to be complied so as to fulfill the constitutional mandate under Article 21/22 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the instant case, prima facie, it appears that there is a significant deficiency in the notice under Section 48 inasmuch as, the person to whom the notice is addressed and the person who signed upon receipt appear to be two different persons. 11. Despite the serious nature of the allegation and the incriminating materials revealed by investigation, as contended by the learned Addl. P.P – the aforementioned defects in the notice under 48 BNSS in my considered view Page No.# 4/4 would not be permissible and the same has to be considered to be a fatal infirmity entitling the accused to grant of bail. As been held by the governing law on the subject, in case of any fatal infirmity in the notices under Section 47/48 BNS, continued detention of the accused comes untenable. 12. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No.209/2025 under Sections 61(2)/319(2)/318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with one suitable surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court CJM, Kamrup(M). 13. The direction for bail is further subject to the conditions: (a) That the accused person shall not abscond; (b) That the accused person shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; and (c) That the accused person shall not try to influence or intimidate witnesses and (d) That the accused person shall not try to commit any illegal activities or offences 14. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 15. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. 16. Returned back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant