Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010237712025 2026:GAU-AS:882 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3525/2025 BAHAR ALI S/O RAMJAN ALI,R/O VILLAGE TANGABARI, P.S. DUDHNOI, DISTRICT GOALPARA, ASSAM. 2: DHAN TALUKDAR S/O AZAD TALUKDAR AZAD ALI HARI DAS TALUKDARR/O VILLAGE TANGABARI P.S. DUDHNOI DISTRICT GOALPARA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2:DIGANTA HAZOWARY S/O LATE KHARGESWAR HAZOWARY R/O VILLAGE BHALAPARA P.O. AND P.S. DUDHNOI DISTRICT GOALPARA ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U S BORA, MR. D GOGOI,MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ (AMICUS CURIAE, R2) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. Nawaz, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. This application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraskha Sanhita, 2023, the accused petitioners namely, Bahar Ali and Dhan Talukdar, have prayed for bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 73/2024 (arising out of Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 35/2024) under Section 376(D) of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The petitioner No. 1 was arrested on 07.05.2024 and the petitioner No. 2 was arrested on 06.05.2024. Presently, both of them are in judicial custody. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in under trial detention and they have been behind the bar more than 600 days. 5. The gist of the allegation out of which the case arose is about intoxication of the victim girls and subjected to rape them by three persons. 6. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted on Page No.# 3/6 31.07.2024. Subsequently, charge has been framed against the three accused persons under Section 6 of POCSO Act r/w Section 67 I.T. Act and r/w Section 376 (D) of IPC. The case is stated to be at the stage of prosecution evidence and seven witnesses have been examined including the victims. 7. Scanned copy of TCR has been received. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeking bail primarily contends two grounds – that, grounds of arrest as stipulated under Section 50/50(A) CrPC(as it existed then) have not been furnished and subsequently, on the length of detention. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on merits, both the victims in their testimony during trial have implicated the accused persons and also some of the witnesses corroborated the same facts. 10. The learned counsel for the informant supporting the contention of the Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the testimony so far has implicated the petitioners. 11. The petitioners’ side has annexed the copy of notice under Section 50 CrPC supposedly given at the time of arrest. The said notice is also available in the scanned copy of record which may be reproduced herein below – “NOTICE (U/S 50 Cr.P.C.) To, Page No.# 4/6 Dhan Talukdar S/o/D/o: Hali Das Talukdar Vill: Tangabali P.S.: Dudhnai Dist: Goalpara State: Assam Reference: You are hereby informed that you are Under Arrest in connection with above reference case which is non-Bailable in nature. So, you are forwarded to the court. You may submit petition before the hon’ble court for bail. Signature of accused person Signature & Designation of I/O NOTICE (U/S 50 Cr.P.C.) To, Bahar Ali S/o/D/o: Ramjan Ali Vill: Tangabali P.S.: Dudhnai Dist: Goalpara State: Assam Reference: You are hereby informed that you are Under Arrest in connection with above reference case which is non-Bailable in nature. So, you are forwarded to the court. You may submit petition before the hon’ble court for bail. Signature of accused person Signature & Designation of I/O” Page No.# 5/6 12. I have given consideration to the aspect of length of detention, which is undoubtedly on the higher side. However, importantly, the aforesaid nature of the notice of ground of arrest given to the accused at the time of arrest would not satisfy the mandate of Article 22(1) of Constitution of India and the laws laid down in this regard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana. 13. In the said two decisions, it has been held that if there is such infirmity in the notices pertaining to ground of arrest, the continued detention of the accused is become untenable. 14. Therefore, despite the serious nature of the alleged offences; considering the infirmities in the notice under Section 50 CrPC pertaining to grounds of arrest and the law governing the subject that prevails at the moment of their arrest – the accused are required to be granted bail at this stage. 15. Accordingly, the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be released on bail in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 73/2024 (arising out of Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 35/2024) under Section 376(D) of IPC r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- each with one suitable surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned concerned court. 16. The direction for bail is further subject to the following conditions: (a) That the petitioners shall co-operate with the trial of the case; Page No.# 6/6 (b) That the petitioners shall not hamper or tamper with evidence; and (c) That the petitioners shall not try to influence any witnesses and commit any illegal activities. (d) That the petitioners shall not intimidate or harass the victims or the family members of the victims. 17. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall entail cancellation of bail. 18. With the above observations, this bail petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant