Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010064882025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./921/2025 RIJU KANTA PEGU S/O- LATE KULU PEGU VILL-NO. 2 SESA MIRI P.O.BIHPURIA, P.S.BIHPURIA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM PIN-784161 2: RATNA KANTA PEGU S/O SRI MIPAK PEGU VILL-ATHAISGHORIA P.O.PULISUMONI P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH PIN-784178 ASSAM CONTACT NO. 636043441 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P NEOG, MS. K SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 09.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Neog, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Riju Kanta Pegu and 2. Ratna Kanta Pegu, who have Page No.# 2/4 been detained behind the bars since 14.02.2024 (for last 54 days) in connection with Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 under Sections 61(2)(a)/329(3)/111(3) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 12.01.2025, one M. Rahman, SI of Police had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Helem Police Station, inter alia, alleging that it has come to the notice of the informant that the petitioners along with several other local and outside associates have been illegally hunting rhinoceros for their horns and other wildlife in Gamiri Forest Area. It is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner No. 2 has procured illegal weapons for hunting wildlife from Dimapur. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. He also submits that the petitioners were arrested in connection with Gohpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024 on 01.11.2024 and they have been shown arrested in the instant case on almost similar accusations. In the earlier FIR also similar accusations were made against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that they have already been allowed to go on bail in Gohpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024. It is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from there and no arms have been recovered from their possession and they have been languishing behind bars for last 54 days. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioners are ready to co-operate in the investigation and, therefore, they may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 produced the case diary of Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are involved in similar kinds of offences in other cases also. He also submits that in one case, even charge-sheet has been laid. He also submits that the witnesses whose statements are recorded have deposed that the petitioners are involved in similar kind of cases on earlier occasions also. 8. As regards the submissions regarding not furnishing grounds of arrest, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners were shown arrested in the instant case after the permission for same was granted by the Court and as the prayer for shown arrest was made by the Investigating Officer in their presence, no separate grounds of arrest are required to be furnished to the petitioners. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and gone through the case diary of Helem P.S. Case No. 03/2025 which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this case. 10. As regards furnishing the grounds of arrest is concerned, it is the constitutional mandate that at the time of arrest of a person in connection with a case, the grounds which necessitated the arrest of that person in such case has to be furnished. The said mandate is applicable even in case where an accused is shown to have been arrested where he was already in custody in connection with some other case. 11. Further, in the instant case, no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the present petitioners and they have been detained behind the bars for last 54 days. 12. It is also pertinent to note the submissions made by the learned counsel Page No.# 4/4 for the petitioners that they have already been granted by the Court in connection with Gohpur P.S. Case No. 152/2024. 13. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners co-operate in the investigation, their further custodial detention may not be necessary in this case. 14. Hence, in view of above both the petitioners are allowed to go on bail of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Gohpur with following conditions:- (i) That the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation; (ii) That the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such persons from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or before the Court 15. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant