Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040018852025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/140/2025 Aman Pansa Son of Shri Noakchai Pansa, a permanent resident of Village Pongchau, PO and PS Pongchau, Longding District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP represented through the Special PP of SIT Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Bori, Wanglak Wangsa,Moni Bori,Hinti Jeram Advocate for the Respondent : Loma Kurdu, Spl.PP (SIT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 12.12.2025 Heard Mr. U. Bori, the learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant and Mr. L. Kurdu, learned Special PP, SIT. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for bail of the accused applicant in connection with SIT Case No. PHQ/CB- PS/NRJ/FIR/77/2025 registered under Section 308(2)/61 BNS read with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Page No.# 2/5 3. An FIR was lodged on 07.09.2025 by Shri Chera Sanjiv alleging that he had received a Whatsapp msg from a unknown number and on replying ‘who’, he received a Whatsapp call from the said unknown number on 06.09.2025 at about 7.50 hours, which lasted approximately 29 seconds. It was alleged that during the call, the caller informed him that a letter would be sent to him via Whatsapp and instructed him to comply with the demands therein. Immediately, thereafter, he received a Whatsapp message from the same number containing a letter on the letter head titled ‘NATIONAL SOCIALIST COUNCIL OF TANI LAND’ purportedly signed by one Antony Doke, Commander in chief, United Tani Land (UTA), whereby an amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores) was demanded and in failure of paying such amount, he was threatened with dire consequences. On receipt of the FIR, the Nirjuli P.S. Case No. 77/2025 was registered under Section 308(2)/61 of BNS read with Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Subsequently, upon investigation being taken over by the SIT, the case was re-registered as PHQ/CB-PS/NRJ/FIR/77/2025. 4. Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that co-accused, namely, Marli Ingo who was arrested in the same SIT case has already been granted bail by this Court. He further submits that while arresting the accused applicant, there are violations of the mandates of Section 47 & 48 of BNSS, as no grounds of arrest have been given under Section 47 as well as 48 BNSS notice. He further submits that though there was a WT msg sent to the Officer-in-Charge, Seppa Police Station for intimating the family members of the accused applicant, the same has not been done and no notice under Section 48 BNS has, in fact, been received by the relatives of the accused applicant. He submits that in view of ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 Page No.# 3/5 as well as in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State of (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, non-serving of the grounds of arrest in notice under Section 47 as well as non- serving of notice under Section 48, makes the arrest illegal and gives the accused applicant a right to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, Mr. L. Kurdu, learned Special PP, SIT submits that grounds of arrest have been provided in the notice under Section 47 of BNSS and a WT msg was sent to the Officer-in-Charge of Seppa Police Station for intimating the grounds of arrest to the family members of the accused applicant. In view of that, he submits that substantial compliance of Section 47 & 48 of BNSS have been done while arresting the accused applicant by the arresting authority. He submits that there is no violation of the mandates of Section 47 & 48 of BNSS as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases. 6. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and has also gone through the materials available in the Case Diary so submitted before this Court. 7. On going through the materials available in the Case Diary, it is seen that though a notice under Section 47 & 48 of BNSS, 2023 jointly had been given to the accused applicant with the name ‘Arrest Intimation’, the grounds of arrest were not adequately provided, rather the contents seem to be the reasons of arrest. 8. It may be relevant to quote hereinbelow, the grounds of arrest which had been given in ‘Arrest Intimation’: “Grounds of Arrest:- You are being arrested for your alleged involvement in the commission of an above mention offences as per the information Page No.# 4/5 and investigation made so far, as there are reasonable grounds to believe that your arrest is necessary to prevent the commission of further offences, ensure your proper identification, secure your presence during investigation and trial, prevent tamper with evidence or influencing witnesses, and for the purpose of a fair, complete, and lawful investigation”. 9. The aforesaid arrest intimation also provided the name of the wife of the accused applicant. However, on perusal of the materials available, no notice under Section 48 of BNSS could be found and on a special query, the learned Special PP, SIT , was also unable to provide any such notice from the Case Diary, except the WT msg that has been sent to Officer-in-Charge, Seppa Police Station by the Officer-in-Charge of CB-PS (SIT) which only requested the Officer-in-Charge of Seppa Police Station to intimate about the arrest of the accused applicant. There is no material available in the Case Diary whether the wife or any other family members of the accused applicant was actually intimated or not. 10. In view of the aforesaid materials available in the Case DIary, this Court is of the prima facie view that the mandates of Section 47 & 48 of BNSS have not been complied with by the arresting authority while arresting the accused applicant. 11. Taking into account the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar (Supra), Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) and Mihir Rajesh Shah –vs-State of Maharashtra and Another, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 2356, 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 Page No.# 5/5 conditions for ends of justice. 12. In view of the aforesaid findings, the accused applicant, namely, Shri Hungsa Pansa is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, Yupia. However, the aforesaid bail order shall be subject to the following conditions:- (i) 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; ii) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper with the evidences iii) That the accused shall not try to influence or threat anyone in connection with the case in any manner. In view of the aforesaid directions, this Bail Application is disposed of, as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant