Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010162642026 2026:GAU-AS:10856 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2198/2026 AMRATANSH RASTOGI SON OF K.D. RASTOGI, RESIDENT OF LITTLE SAROJINI NAGAR, OPPOSITE BODOLAND GUEST HOUSE, POLICE STATION - KOKRAJHAR, DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BORA, MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR. D K BAIDYA,MR. V A CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 05.08 . 2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.A. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner namely, Amratansh Rastogi, under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 110/2026 registered under Sections 75 (2)/ 78(1)/ 296/ 351 (2) BNS, 2023 in P.R.C. No.192/2026 pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, SDJM (S), Kokrajhar. 3. That on 14.07.2026 one F.I.R. was lodged before the Officer In Charge, of Kokrajhar Police Station by one Lali Basumatary inter-lia that she was appointed in the shop of cloth, jewelry and toys of the petitioner situated at Little Sarogini Nagar on 30.06.2026. After 2 days of her joining the petitioner has been torturing her physically and mentally and continuously advancing inappropriate gestures towards her to do bad act and physical relation with her. Further, the informant stated that to do the bad act the accused person touched her waist, shoulder and various part of her body. Prior to this the accused also tortured physically and mentally her friend one, Jamgna Nazary who used to work there, to do bad act with her. Therefore, she stopped working there. Hence, the case. 4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, prior to lodging of the instant FIR on 14.07.2026, the wife of the petitioner had lodged an FIR on 13.07.2026, making allegations of theft of articles from the shop of the petitioner, thereafter the employee started making false allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of the petitioner. After the lodging of the present FIR, another FIR was also lodged on the same date by the wife of the petitioner, which was registered as Kokrajhar P.S. Case No. 110/2026. 5. It is the submission of learned Senior counsel that, although the alleged offence is punishable by imprisonment about to 7 years, no notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, 2023 was issued to the petitioner, as mandated by the Page No.# 3/4 Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. The forwarding report also does not indicate any reason as to why such notice was not issued to the petitioner. 6. Furthermore, the order of remand also does not reflect any satisfaction on the part of the learned Magistrate as to compliance with the provisions of Section 35 (3) BNSS. The petitioner has already spent 22 days behind bars and the investigation of the case is also over and considering the nature of the allegations, further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary, submits learned Senior counsel. 7. The learned Addl.P.P submits that the reasons for non-issuance of notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS may be available in the TCR/CD, which may therefore be called for. 8. On perusal of the order of the remand dated 15.07.2026 passed by the learned Magistrate, it appears that there is no reflection as regards compliance of the provisions of Section 35 (3) BNSS or as to why the arrest was justified without issuance of such notice. The said order has been passed after perusal of the CD and if such reasons had been mentioned in the CD, the same would naturally have found reflection in the order of remand. 9. In view of the above, and being satisfied that prima facie there has been non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35 (3) of the BNSS, and having regard to the nature of the allegations, the counter FIR filed by the petitioner as well as the period of detention and also the fact that the investigation of the case is over, further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary. 10. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed. 11. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a Page No.# 4/4 bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial, Magistrate, SDJM(S) Kokrajhar, Assam in connection with the aforesaid case. 12. It is further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate with the trial and he shall not try to intimidate or influence any witnesses acquainted with the facts of this case, in any manner. 13. In terms of the above, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant