Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010061392025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./866/2025 AMULYA CHANDRA RAJBANSHI ALIAS BHAITI S/O ANIL CH. RAJBANSHI, RESIDENT OF PANDU 6 NO. COLONY, PS JALUKBARI, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : S YESMIN, MR P SONOWAL,MR K THAKUR,MR D MEDHI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 24.04.2025 1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. D.Medhi for the petitioner Amulya Chandra Rajbanshi @ Bhaiti who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 06.03.2025 in connection with Jalukbari PS Case No. 111/2025 under Sections 103(1) of the BNS. Page No.# 2/5 2. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor Mr. R.J.Baruah, is present for the respondent State. 3. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. 4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has killed the informant’s father and the informant’s father has categorically stated that the petitioner attacked him just before his death. An FIR regarding this incident was lodged by the informant. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grounds of arrest were not mentioned to the family members under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. The notice to informant reveals the case number only and Section under which the petitioner is booked. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar –vs- The State of Haryana reported in 2025 SCC Online 269 wherein it has been held that : “3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC, making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take immediate and prompt actions to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law. The arrested person, because of his detention, may not have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to the friends, relatives and such nominated persons by way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to secure release of the detained person on bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue, and in 3 addition to his relatives as mentioned above is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest but also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated Page No.# 3/5 persons to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity for actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Hence, the requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or such other person as may be disclosed or nominated by the arrested person, so as to make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution meaningful and effective failing which, such arrest may be rendered illegal.” 6. It is further submitted that the meaning of grounds of arrest has been clearly mentioned in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha –vs- State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 INSC 414 wherein it has been observed in paragraph 49 that: “49. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending Page No.# 4/5 himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 7. On the contrary, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) is not similar to this case. The accused Prabir Purkayastha is not aware why he was arrested and when he was produced before the Court he learnt about the grounds of arrest. Moreover, the case of Prabir Purkayastha was under UA (P) Act. In this case, there is direct allegation in the FIR that the petitioner has committed murder of the informant’s father. The petitioner is not entitled to bail especially when the Case Dairy is not forwarded. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra) and the Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it appears that bail has to be granted to the petitioner. 8. The petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- with a suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), Guwahati subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the remaining part of the investigation, ii) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. every fortnight till completion of the investigation, iii) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to the witnesses, and iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission. Page No.# 5/5 9. On breach of any of the above conditions, learned court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 10. In terms of the above observations, the bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant