Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010061852025 2025:GAU-AS:4483 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./871/2025 BIRENDAR DHADHA S/O LATE BHAWARLAL DHADHA, R/O WARD NO. 4, BAROHALIA, P.O. AND P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR,ASSAM MOBILE NO. 7635985825 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE LEARNED PP, GOVT. OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR G CHOUDHURY, MR ARINDAM BARUAH,MS N KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 09.04.2025 Heard Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Tezpur P. S. Case No.134/2025, registered under Sections 120(B)/420/406 of IPC. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. The petitioner contends that he is not related to the informant, her husband, nor to Arup Saikia, nor he is aware of any agreement or transaction between the informant’s husband and Gouri Choudhury. He was arrested in connection with this case solely on the allegation that he facilitated the process of agreement for sale between the Gouri Choudhury and one Arup Saikia. But, the said Arup Saikia has never filed a complaint in any police station regarding the registration of the sale deed against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for last 38 days without involvement in the alleged offence. 4. He further raised the issue that, at the time of his arrest, he was not provided with a Section 47 of BNSS notice; however, a Section 48 of BNSS notice was issued to his family members, wherein the grounds for his arrest was Page No.# 3/4 not mentioned, which is mandatorily required and non-compliance of the same is in violation of Articles 21 & 22(1) of the Constitution of India. He accordingly submitted that all the full particulars of the offence, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused, should be informed to him at the time of his arrest and otherwise it would be against the mandate of the Constitution of India as well as the statutory provisions which would vitiate the arrest itself. 5. He further submits that, considering the length of his detention and the failure to mention the grounds of arrest under Section 48 of BNSS, as well as the failure to issue a notice under Section 47 of BNSS, he may be released on bail. Moreover, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had sufficient opportunity to interrogate him while keeping him in custody. 6. In this context, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, also cited the following decisions: (i) Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269. (ii) Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254. 7. Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted he is not in a position to assess the actual involvement of the accused/petitioner and thus, he insisted to call for the Case Diary at this stage. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, as well as considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, I find that further custodial interrogation of the accused/petitioner seems to be not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Page No.# 4/4 9. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, Sonitpur, the accused/ petitioner, namely, Birendar Dhadha, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tezpur, Sonitpur, without prior permission. 10. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant