Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010261492025 2025:GAU-AS:17009 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3794/2025 SRI DIPAK CHAKRABORTY S/O-LATE MANORANJAN CHAKRABORTY R/O ADAGUDAM, SHREEBHUMI NAGAR, BYE LANE 13, HILL SIDE, PSDISPUR DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM PERMANENT R/OF VILL - BURA MAYONG, PO- RAJA MAYONG PS- MAYONG, DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM- 782411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:RAJU GOSWAMI (INFORMANT) S/O LATE MANILAL GOSWAMI SHREEBHUMI NAGAR HILL SIDE SHANKARPUR PS. DISPUR GUWAHATI KAMRUP (M Advocate for the Petitioner : S K PODDAR, R MANDAL,MR. R GHOSH,MS. N PODDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. P MAZUMDER (R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 09.12.2025 Heard Mr S K Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr K K Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for granting bail to the applicant, namely, Sri Dipak Chakraborty, in connection with Dispur PS Case No. 905/2025, under Sections 75(2)/78(2) of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 08.11.2025, the father of the victim girl had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge of Odalbakra Police out Post alleging, inter alia, that the accused residing near his house, keeps staring at his daughter when she is alone and also made videos by mobile whenever she goes to the bathroom or is taking bath. On 08.11.2025, after the informant’s daughter returned from school and went to the bathroom to take bath and washing her clothes in front of the bathroom door, the accused tried to show the victim some obscene videos in his mobile. On making hue and cry by the victim, the accused went back to his house. It is also alleged that the accused used to do such things not only with the informant’s daughter but also with other minor girls as well as other women of the locality. On this FIR dated 08.11.2025, Dispur PS Case No. 905/2025, under Sections 75(2)/78(2) of BNS, read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and investigated into. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of the FIR, on the next day, i.e., on 09.11.2025, the accused applicant was arrested by the Investigating Officer of the instant case and after arrest, he was produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup (Metro) and was forwarded to judicial custody and since then, i.e., on 09.11.2025, he has been languishing in jail. 5. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that there is apparent non-compliance of the mandates of Section 47 & 48 of the BNSS, 2023 while arresting the accused-applicant by the arresting authority. The learned Page No.# 3/4 counsel submits that neither were the grounds of arrest given to the petitioner nor to his close relatives/nominated family members and no friends were informed about the arrest of the accused applicant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he is suffering from several diseases including mental problems and is under regular treatment of Doctor and constant supervision of his family members. It is also submitted that the real fact in this case is that there are boundary disputes regarding possession of land with the neighbours and to take revenge for resisting them in expanding their boundary by encroaching the land under possession of the petitioner and his family members, the informant in collusion with other neighbours filed the present FIR with false and concocted allegations. Hence, this bail application. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the grounds of arrest, which are available at Annexure-IV (Page 24 of the petition) would reveal that the same were not grounds of arrest, but were the reasons for his arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Prabir Purkayastha –Versus- State (NCT of Delhi); reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, to assert that the grounds of arrest as is required to be communicated are different from the reasons for arrest. He has submitted that reasons for arrest are formal in nature and the grounds of arrest would be personal in nature and specific to the person arrested. He has submitted that in view of the above the accused is entitled to the privilege of bail since his remand and arrest are vitiated. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is at a nascent stage and releasing the petitioner at this stage would not be conducive for investigation. The learned Additional Public Page No.# 4/4 Prosecutor has further submitted that the grounds of arrest have been specifically mentioned in the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS. He has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 9. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties have been considered. This Court is of the view that the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS as supplied to the petitioner and his family had sufficed the requirement of law. Moreover the investigation is at a nascent stage and therefore, it would not be conducive to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. 10. Accordingly the bail application is rejected at this stage. 11. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant