Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020005762026 2026:GAU-NL:437 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./22/2026 RAJKISHOR CHAUDHARY S/O RAMASHREE CHAUDHARY, PRESENT ADDRESS - DILONG WARD - 5, MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND. PERMANENT ADDRESS - MANIPUR VILLAGE, MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT, P.S. KAJIMAHMADPUR, BIHAR. VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND P.P. NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : T. KHEZHIE, K SOTE,N KERETSU,THEJA VITSU,ROVIMENO THOU,ALEZO KIRE Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 24.08.2026 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. T. Khezhie. Also heard learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. E. Thiba Phom, for the State Respondent. Page No.# 2/7 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is a friend of the Accused Person, Mr. Anupam Kumar Singh. 3. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Accused Person was arrested on 20.02.2026 from his official posting place at the Directorate General of the Assam Rifles Complex, Shillong and has been in judicial custody till date. He has been arrested in pursuance of the FIR dated 14.01.2026 filed before the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station-I, Mokokchung, Nagaland. The FIR was lodged for alleged use of fake court seal and stamp of the name of the court/Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Mokokchung. 4. After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the Accused Person on 19.05.2026 and the Accused Person has been charged under Sections 319(2) and 338 of the BNSS read with Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000 and the case has been registered as Mokokchung Police Station I Case No. 004/2026 corresponding to GR Case No. 08/2026. 5. It is also stated that the Accused Person has preferred three bail applications which have all been rejected by the orders dated 31.03.2026, 08.06.2026 and 23.06.2026. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the mandatory requirement of furnishing the written grounds of arrest to the accused as well as to the relatives/friends of the accused has not been complied with by the arresting authorities at the time of the arrest of the Accused Person. Although the arrest records reflect that the wife of the Page No.# 3/7 Accused was informed regarding his arrest, mere intimation is insufficient to satisfy the constitutional mandate. It is an admitted fact that the wife of the Accused Person is a permanent resident of the State of Bihar and was not present at the place of arrest. Till date, neither the Accused Person nor his wife has received any written grounds of arrest. As such, the Accused Person’s continued detention is a violation of the constitutional provisions of law and the settled position of law with regard to arrest and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the case of: i.Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254; ii.Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr., (2025) 5 SCC 799; iii.Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2026) 1 SCC 500, as well as iv.Order of this Court dated 14.10.2025 in Bail Appln./21/2025. 8. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Accused Person has no criminal antecedents and has never been implicated in any criminal proceedings prior to the present case. It is stated that the investigation is already completed and the charge-sheet has been submitted and, therefore, his continued incarceration is not required any longer. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet would show Page No.# 4/7 that all the witnesses are Government officials and, therefore, the chances of tampering or influencing the witnesses does not arise, even if the Accused Person is released on bail. 9. It is submitted that the Accused Person has already been in custody since 20.02.2026 and his continued incarceration would amount to an unjustified deprivation of his personal liberty. The learned counsel undertakes that the Accused Person would appear before the learned Trial Court on every date fixed and is ready to face the trial. 10. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has resisted the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner firstly on the ground that there is a prima facie case against the Accused Person. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that intimation of the arrest has been given to the wife of the Accused as can be clearly made out from the records, specifically in the arrest intimation format to family members/friends under Section 36B of the BNSS. It is reflected therein that the wife/relatives are not residing nearby and, therefore, intimation was given through the phone, accordingly. Therefore, it cannot be said that the family/friend of the Accused Person was not provided with the grounds of arrest as the same was given to them through the phone. 11. Another objection made by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the Accused Person is not a resident of Nagaland as he is a permanent resident of Bihar, and his posting place is in Shillong. Therefore, there is every chance that the Accused Person may abscond and fail to appear for trial. There are also chances that the Accused Person will abscond and Page No.# 5/7 misuse his liberty if bail is granted to the Accused Person at this stage. 12. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the trial court records which are before this Court. 13. The records show that the Accused Person was arrested on 20.02.2026 and he has been in custody since then. It is an admitted fact as shown from the records that the charge-sheet has already been submitted on 19.05.2026 and the case is now ready for trial. 14. This Court has also perused the records specifically with regard to the information of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person as well as to his family members/friends. From the format for information of grounds of arrest under Section 47, BNSS, it can be seen that the grounds of arrest have been duly provided to the arrested person. The acknowledgement also shows that the Accused Person has received the same and has acknowledged the receipt by appending his signature. However, on perusal of the arrest intimation to family members under Section 36B of the BNSS it goes to show that only the arrest intimation was given to the wife of the Accused Person. Arrest intimation is different from grounds of arrest. The records do not show that the grounds of arrest were intimated in writing to the wife of the Accused Person, which is a mandate of Section 48 of the BNSS as well as Article 22 of the Constitution of India. It is the requirement of law as laid down in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (Supra), Vihaan Kumar (Supra) as well as Prabir Purkayastha (Supra) that the grounds of arrest have to be intimated to the relatives/friends of the Page No.# 6/7 arrested person. It is also a requirement of law that such grounds of arrest in writing must be received and acknowledged by the wife/relative and the same has to be on record. The records do not indicate anywhere that such written grounds of arrest have been provided to the wife either through email, WhatsApp or by post. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the mandate of Article 22 of the Constitution of India has been violated by the arresting authority at the time of arrest of the Accused Person. 15. Be that as it may, it is also seen that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and the case is ready for trial. The only concern of the Court is that the Accused Person has to face the trial and his presence has to be secured so that he appears before the Trial Court. 16. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the mandates of Section 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India have been violated in the instant case and on such grounds, the petition is allowed. The accused, Mr. Anupam Kumar Singh is hereby released on bail under the following terms and conditions: i.Execution of bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only), with one local surety of like amount, who shall be a permanent resident of Mokokchung, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. ii.The Accused shall not tamper with the evidence or try to influence the witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly and shall appear before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed without fail. Page No.# 7/7 iii.The Accused shall provide 2 (two) phone numbers on which he can be contacted at all times and also provide before the Court a copy of any ‘proof of property’ in his name or in his wife’s name situated in the State of Bihar. The Accused shall also provide address proof of his place of posting as well as his permanent address at Bihar. 17. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant