Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010268462025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3911/2025 HABIBAR RAHMAN SON OF LATE ABDUS SAMAD R/O KHANDAKARPARA P.S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR J U AHMED (INFORMANT) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 26 .03. 2026 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Habibar Rahman, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail, who was arrested on 22.11.2025 in connection with Hajo Page No.# 2/3 P.S. Case No. 491/2025 under Sections 105/ 118 (2) of BNS, 2023. 3. As per allegations, the petitioner, who was the driver of a vehicle, hit 2 (two) girls while driving a Bolero vehicle from Kalitakuchi to Mukalmua and escaped from the scene. It is alleged that the petitioner was under influence of alcohol at that time. Subsequently, the girls also died. 4. It is submitted by Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269 and Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in (2014) SCC 2756 has been violated. It is pointed out that the notice under Section 48 of BNSS 2023 has been issued by way of WT message but there is no acknowledgement of receipt of the same by the family members/ friends/ nominated person of the accused. Also it appears from the order of remand dated 22.11.2025 that no legal representation was provided to the petitioner on the date of his remand even by way of a legal aid counsel which has certainly caused demonstrable prejudice to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court a report of the District Transport Officer, Kamrup, Amingaon wherefrom it appears that the vehicle in question was totally burn down because of which it could not be ascertained whether the vehicle in question was suffering from any technical defects. 6. From the materials available in the case diary, it appears that no intentional act on the part of the petitioner is discernable. Furthermore, the contention with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 48 of BNSS also appears to have force. Page No.# 3/3 7. In view of the above, the prayer for bail is allowed. The interim order of bail dated 04.12.2025 is hereby made absolute on the same terms and conditions mentioned in the interim order itself. 8. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant