Page No.# 1/9 GAHC040011492025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/86/2025 Ajit Gogoi S/o Baneswar Gogoi, aged about 65 years, R/o Innao Pathar village, PO Innao, PS- Diyun, District Changlang, AP VERSUS THE STATE OF AP and 2 Ors. represented by the PP of AP 2:Pema Choizom (Informant) Age: 0 Occupation : W/o Late Ankong Danggen aged about 44 years R/o Nyokong village PO/PS Tuting District Upper Siang AP 3:ABC (Victim) Age: 0 Occupation : D/o XYZ aged about 14 years R/o Nyokong village PO/PS Tuting District Upper Siang A Advocate for the Petitioner : Chow Nipu Pangyok, Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Mudang Yubbey,David Tatak Page No.# 2/9 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 24.10.2025 Heard Mr. C. N. Pangyok, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M. Yubbey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the accused person, namely, Shri Anupam Gogoi, on bail in connection with PSG SC (POCSO) No. 04/2025, corresponding to Tuting P.S. Case No. 01/2025, under Sections 64(2)(d)/64(2)(m)/65(1)/351(2) of the BNS read with Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, who has been arrested on 05.01.2025. 3. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 05.01.2025, at around 1840 hours, a written F.I.R. was lodged by one Smti Pema Choizom alleging that her minor daughter, Ms. “X” (name withheld), aged about 14 (fourteen) years and a student of Class VIII in Siang Valley School, was subjected to sexual abuse, rape, torture and threat by her school teacher, namely, Shri Anupam Gogoi. The incident reportedly occurred in the month of December, 2024 within school premises inside the teacher’s room. The victim disclosed that she had been raped multiple times, subjected to inappropriate touches and threatened with dire consequences, including death, if she resisted or reported the acts. It is also alleged that the accused person has displayed violent behavior and attempted to physically harm the child. The informant, being a single mother, has expressed her anguish over the grave nature of the acts and emotional trauma caused to her daughter and has sought immediate legal action. Page No.# 3/9 4. On receipt of the aforesaid F.I.R., a case was registered being Tuting P.S. Case No. 01/2025, under Section 64(2)(d)/64(2)(m)/65(1)/351(2) of the BNS read with Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of investigation, the police on 14.02.2025 submitted the charge-sheet against the accused/applicant under Sections 64(2)(d)/64(2)(m)/65(1)/351 (2) of the BNS read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is pending trial before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang District, Pasighat. 5. The accused has filed as many as 3 (three) bail applications before the learned Trial Court, which have been rejected by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), East Siang District, Pasighat. Hence, the present application has been filed for grant of bail to the accused person. 6. Mr. C. N. Pangyok, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the arrest of the accused person is illegal inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of law under Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS, 2023 have been violated, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He submits that although the Investigating Officer served a Notice under Section 47 of BNSS to the alleged accused, the said Notice merely mentioned the case number and Sections without disclosing any factual particulars or specific grounds of arrest. He submits that Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 mandates that at the time of arrest, the police officer must communicate to the arrestee the full particulars of the offence along with other grounds of arrest. However, in the present case, no grounds of arrest of the accused person was communicated by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the same violates the mandatory provisions of law as the communication of the case number and Sections under which the accused has been charged is not sufficient as the basic facts of the grounds of arrest in writing at the time of Page No.# 4/9 arrest has to be communicated. 7. He submits that the incident alleged to have been occurred in the month of December, 2024, however the alleged accused was arrested on 05.01.2025. Therefore, at the time of arrest of the alleged accused, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to inform the ground of arrest; however, no grounds of arrest have been communicated to the alleged accused. He further submits that it is mandatory on the part of the arresting authority under Section 48 of BNSS, 2023 to inform the relative, friends or other person disclosed or nominated by the arrested person for the purpose of giving information about his arrest in the case. Therefore, the arrest of the accused person and his detention is illegal on account of non-compliance of the statutory provision mandated under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023. Mr. Pangyok, learned counsel, submits that the duty is cast upon both the arresting authority and the Court to safeguard the mandatory constitutional right under Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The arrest of the accused and its continuous detention without proper communication of the grounds of arrest in writing and remanding the accused is illegal and violation of fundamental right. Therefore, the accused person is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Mr. Pangyok, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2025 SC 1388, to submit that when an arrested person is produced, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain whether compliance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and other mandatory safeguards have been made out or not. When any violation is established, it is the duty of the Court to forthwith order the release of the accused and same will be a ground for grant of bail even if statutory restrictions do not affect the power of the Court to grant bail Page No.# 5/9 under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution is established. 9. On the other hand, Mr. G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that the accused is a teacher and he knew very well that under what circumstances he has been arrested. He submits that in the Notice under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, it is clearly mentioned that the accused was arrested in connection with the present case and the Sections are clearly mentioned. In a serious case like the present one, even if there is minor irregularity, a hyper technical approach should not be adopted as it would defeat the ends of justice as Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 is designed to ensure fairness and protection against the arbitrary arrest. He submits that in the case in hand, the allegations are so serious that arrest is a natural consequence. It is not the case that no notice was served at all. The accused did not raise any objection when he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, which clearly indicates that he was fully aware of the ground of arrest. Therefore, he submits that grant of bail to the accused on hyper technical ground would not be in the interest of justice. 10. Mr. M. Yubbey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, submits that the accused is a teacher and the victim is a student of the school in which the accused is serving and the informant is a single mother. The allegation against the accused is serious in nature which has caused trauma not only to the victim but also to the single mother (informant). He submits that since the trial has started, the accused person is not entitled to be granted bail in view of the fact that the offence alleged is serious in nature and the accused is not a permanent resident of State of Arunachal Pradesh. 11. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Trial Court Records. Page No.# 6/9 12. A Notice under Section 47 of BNSS was served to the accused, which reflects that the accused has been informed that he was being arrested in connection with Tuting P.S. Case No. 01/2025, under Section 64(2)(d)/64(2) (m)/65(1)/351(2) of the BNS read with Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act. It also reflects that the accused was informed of his right to seek release on bail from Police Station/Court if a suitable bailor appears or submitting the bail application through the lawyer. 13. Perusal of the notice shows that no grounds of arrest have been particularly communicated. However, perusal of the Arrest Memo and case record shows that the accused was fully informed about the grounds of arrest. The accused, being a teacher, is presumed to have capable to understand the circumstances for which he was being arrested. The allegation and the materials as obtained is very serious and therefore, it would not be appropriate to held that no ground of arrest has been communicated as the applicant has admitted to have received the information of arrest via Whatsapp and the applicant was also informed verbally by voice mail by the Investigating Officer, which appears to be substantial compliance of the provisions of law. 14. As correctly held by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, that the purpose of informing the accused the grounds of arrest and informing the relatives or friends of the accused about the arrest is to ensure accountability and protection of the rights of the accused. Informing the relative ensures that the relative is aware of the arrest and they can initiate steps for his legal assistance as well as for bail. Although, the grounds of arrest is not mentioned in clear terms in the Notice under Section 47 of BNSS, the Sections were clearly mentioned which may be a mere irregularity and the same stands rectified by informing the accused of his ground of arrest orally and arresting in the Page No.# 7/9 presence of two witnesses as well as via Whatsapp and by voice mail. 15. It is true that the information of grounds of arrest must be provided to the arrest person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts constituting the grounds is communicated to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands. The mode and method of communication must be such the object of constitutional safeguard is achieved. However, it would not be appropriate to say that in the notice it should compulsory spell out the details of the grounds of arrest. Thus, it would be sufficient if the basic facts constituting the grounds of arrest is communicated to the arrested person effectively in which he understand and the mode and method of communication must be such that the object of constitutional safeguard is achieved. As noted above, although notice does not provides the detail grounds of arrest, but the accused was verbally informed about the grounds, which, in my view has achieved the object of safeguards. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Shri Darshan ETC., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702, has held as under: “...20.1. Delay in furnishing the grounds of arrest cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for grant of bail. 20.1.1. The learned counsel for the respondents accused contended that the arrest was illegal as the grounds of arrest were not furnished immediately in writing, thereby violating Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and Section 50 Cr.P.C (now Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). This submission, however, is devoid of merit. 20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that "no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice". Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C. requires that "every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. 20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested Page No.# 8/9 person must be informed of the grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case. Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana22, it it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. 20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.” 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3539 has held that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity. etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. It has also observed that over a period of time, two things are noticed, i.e. (i) either the bail is granted after charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 18. Having noticed above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Court should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either results in conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial, when it comes to Page No.# 9/9 appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event, if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too, for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed. 19. In the case in hand, the allegations are serious in nature involving the offence under POCSO Act and the accused is a teacher who is alleged to have committed a serious offence against his own student. The deposition of the victim is yet to be recorded by the Court. However, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. prima facie appears to be clear and consistent that the accused person had subjected the victim to sexual assault. The accused failed to show any demonstrable prejudice as there appears to be substantial compliance of the provisions of law in the present case. 20. Having considered above, this Court is not inclined to admit the accused, namely, Shri Anupam Gogoi, to bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected and disposed of. However, rejection of this bail application shall not be a bar to the learned Special Judge (POCSO) for grant of bail other than the grounds determined hereinabove. 21. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant