Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020005282026 2026:GAU-NL:406 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./19/2026 SMTI. KENEISENUO KUOTSU D/O MERHUTSO KUOTSU, R/O T. KHEL, KOHIMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NAGALAND 2:SMTI. HILI KATH (COMPLAINANT) THROUGH SMTI. VIKUOBINUO NISA THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER WOMEN POLICE STATION KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : A. SOPHIE, Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 24.07.2026 The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for the release of the Accused, Page No.# 2/7 Shri Pelevotuo on bail in connection with Special Case No. 14/2026 corresponding to Women PS Case No. 11/2026 under Section 74/75 of the BNS, 2023 r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. A. Sophie. Also heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State Respondents, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Accused person was arrested on 11.06.2026 in connection with the aforementioned case. Thereafter, upon expiry of the police remand he was remanded to judicial custody. The Petitioner had filed an application for bail, being I.A./115/2026 before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Kohima. However the same was rejected by order dated 03.07.2026 on the ground that the case diary of the case reveals that the Accused was arrested under proper arrest memo after duly informing his rights, grounds of arrest and intimation/arrest copies being given to his wife. The learned Special Judge, therefore, found that there was no substance in the contention regarding non-compliance with the procedural safeguards relating to the arrest. 4. The Petitioner herein has therefore come before this Court on two grounds: a) That there are no documents on record to show that the grounds of arrest were communicated in writing to the relatives, friends or family of the Accused and that the same has been acknowledged by them and as such, the same is a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India Page No.# 3/7 and Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 rendering the arrest of the accused illegal. b) That the Accused was never produced before the learned Special Judge or before the Magistrate physically or through video conferencing and no reasons whatsoever were cited for the non-production of the Accused while issuing the orders dated 01.07.2026 and 10.07.2026 and the same is in violation of the mandate of Section 187(4) of the BNSS, 2023 rendering the remand and further detention of the Accused illegal. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State Respondents has submitted that there is a prima facie case against the Accused person and Section 8 of the POCSO being a grave offence the investigation should be allowed to continue and that the Accused may not be released at this stage. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the investigation is at a crucial stage as the statement of the victim is yet to be taken. Another ground which the learned Public Prosecutor has taken is that the Case Diary clearly reveals that the grounds of arrest have been provided to the relatives/friends of the accused. 6. This Court has gone through the pleadings and also considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The provision of Section 187(4) of the BNSS provides that a Magistrate cannot authorize the detention of the accused in custody of the police unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently over time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production Page No.# 4/7 of the accused either in person or through audio-video electronic means. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of his submission in this regard has relied on the case of Raj Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi, reported in MANU/SC/0164/1970, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the various provisions of the CrPC and also the various decisions of the Apex Court lead to the conclusion that the accused must be present before the Magistrate or Court when order of remand is passed and when the remand order is passed without the accused being produced, the same is illegal. It was also held that the reason behind the requirement of the accused to be present at the time of passing the order of remand is to give him an opportunity to oppose the said remand and such opportunity will be denied to an accused person if he is not produced before the Magistrate or the Court when the order of remand is passed. 7. It is further clear that for every order of remand either for judicial custody or for police custody specifically, the accused should be produced before the court either physically or through video conferencing so that the court can satisfy itself that the detention remains lawful, that there is no complaint of ill treatment and that further custody is justified. 8. It is evident that the Court cannot grant the remand to the police in the complete absence of the accused without any form of production. In the instant case, orders dated 01.07.2026 as well as 10.07.2026 do not reveal anywhere that the Accused was produced in person or through video conferencing when the orders of police remand were passed. In such view of the matter, the remand order dated 01.07.2026 and 10.07.2026 are Page No.# 5/7 violative of Section 187(4) of the BNSS and therefore, illegal. 9. As far as the second contention of the Petitioner regarding the service of the grounds of arrest to the family/friends of the Accused is concerned, this Court has perused the arrest information to family which is annexed in the petition as Annexure-D. The same reveals that the arrest information to the family was given to the wife of the Accused. But it does not mention anywhere that the grounds of arrest were served on the wife of the Accused and such acknowledgement is not seen. The said Annexure-D is a certified true copy obtained from the Trial Court. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner had relied on the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, specifically at paragraph 3 of the said judgment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment had held that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue and to his relatives is not merely a formality but to enable the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest and also to provide the necessary opportunity to him through his relatives, friends or nominated 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. The Supreme Court held that 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 of India meaningful and effective failing which such arrests made are rendered illegal. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to produce any document to show that the grounds of arrest have Page No.# 6/7 been provided to the wife of the Accused in the present case. 10. As can be seen from the observations made above, it is the requirement of law that the grounds of arrest have to be intimated to the Accused person as well as to the relative/friends of the Accused. It is also a requirement of law that such grounds of arrest in writing have to be acknowledged and signed by the relative/friend and such acknowledgement has to be on record. Upon going through the records, this Court is unable to find any such receipt or acknowledgement of the grounds of arrest from the wife of the arrested person. 11. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the requirement of Section 48 of the BNSS and the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated in the instant case. It is also found that the provisions of Section 187(4), BNSS have been violated rendering the further detention of the Accused illegal. 12. The accused, Shri Pelevotuo, is therefore directed to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions: i. Execution of bail bond of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Thousand only) with one local surety of like amount who shall be a permanent resident of Kohima to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. ii. The Accused shall not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation by directly or indirectly influencing the witnesses/victim and shall appear before the Investigating Officer Page No.# 7/7 once a week till the investigation is completed. iii. The Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the Court. 13. With the above observations and directions the instant application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant