Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010156742026 2026:GAU-AS:11617 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2119/2026 RAHUL KUMAR SINGH SON OF LATE SHAKTI MUNI SINGH ALIAS SHAKTI MUNNI SINGH RESIDENT OF KORAN SARAI P.S.- KORAN SARAI DIST.- BUXAR, BIHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE P.P.ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K SAHARIA, MS K DAS,MRS. M DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 13.08.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Saharia, learned counsel for the accused and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is preferred by the accused, namely, Rahul Kumar Singh, who has been Page No.# 2/4 languishing in jail hazot since 18.07.2025, in connection with Sessions Case No.66/2025, arising out of Rangia P.S. Case No.149/2025 registered under Seciton 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge, Kamrup, Rangia, for grant of bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR, lodged by one Ram Ashish Singh on 03.07.2025. The essence of allegation in the FIR is that his niece Anjani Kumari was living in a rented house at Rangia with her husband, namely, Rahul Kumar Singh, the present accused, along with two children for last two months and on 03.07.2025, at about 6:00 a.m., the owner of the rented house informed him over phone that his niece was murdered with a knife by her husband Rahul Kumar Singh, the present accused and fled away from his rented house. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Saharia, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 18.07.2025 and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot and after completion of investigation, the I.O. has laid charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court and charge has been framed against the accused and out of 17 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, 6 witnesses have been examined so far and that while effecting arrest the accused has not been served notice under Section 48 BNSS and also no signature of the accused was taken in the arrest memo and notice under Seciton 47 BNSS was also not properly issued and the accused is ready to face trial and will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date and therefore, he has contended to allow this petition. 5. Per contra, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that it is a serious case where the accused has murdered his wife and that the scanned copy of the record clearly demonstrate that notice under Section 48 BNSS, 2023 was issued to him and the notice under Section 47 BNSS has also been issued to him and that the accused has Page No.# 3/4 preferred several bail applications before the learned Trial Court, where the plea of non-furnishing of the ground of arrest under Section 47 BNSS and also non-furnishing of notice under Section 48 BNSS has been taken and that no prejudice has been caused to the accused and as such, he has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Trial Court. 7. It appears that the accused was charged under Section 103(1)/238 of the BNS, 2023 and he has been languishing in jail hazot since 18.07.2025. The case is pending at the stage of trial and out of 17 witnesses 6 witnesses have been examined and the witnesses, examined so far implicated the accused with the offence charged and trial is going on and enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will cause prejudice to the prosecution side in as much as there is possibility of influencing the witnesses, who are yet to be examined and also the possibility of fleeing away from justice could not be ruled out, as after commission of the offence, he had fled away from the place of occurrence. 8. Further, it appears from the record that notice under Section 48 BNSS has been issued to the family members of the accused and the ground of arrest has also been furnished. Though the learned counsel for the accused has raised an issue that the provision of Section 47 and 48 BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with, yet, the submission of Mr. Saharia, learned counsel for the accused left this Court unimpressed. 9. In this context reference can also be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed procedural safeguards on arrest, including the obligation under Section 50A of the Cr.P.C., 1973 (pari materia to Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023). It has been held that while Section Page No.# 4/4 50A Cr.P.C./Section 48 BNSS is mandatory, and the Courts apply a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged non-compliance or procedural lapses. Mere technical non-compliance or irregularity does not automatically render the arrest illegal or entitle the accused on bail, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend. 10. In the case of the State of Meghalaya v. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, SLP (Crl.) No.11944/2026, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 752, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that minor/technical or typographical errors in arrest documents do not automatically vitiate the arrest or justify bail in a serious case, especially where grounds were served, prior bail rejections on merits had attained finality, and the trial had begun. It distinguished complete non-service of grounds from inadequate reasons and applied a prejudice test. 11. In the instant case, having gone through the scanned copy of the record, this Court finds that the provision of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has been complied with in substance and as held in the case of Sri Darshan (supra), even if there is any irregularity, the same at best a curable defect and could not, by itself, warrant releasing the accused on bail - especially given the gravity of the charges, specially under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 12. In view of the aforementioned discussion, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE