Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010169132026 2026:GAU-AS:12343 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2330/2026 RITESH KUMAR SON OF JUGAL YADAV RESIDENT OF HARILA, P.S. BARHI DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH, JHARKHAND VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 27.08.2026 Heard Mr I U Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. By this application the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Ghograpar PS Case No. 44/2026, registered under Sections 61(2)(a)/126(2)/117(2)/ Page No.# 2/5 109(1)/309(6)/well as Section 62 of the BNS, 2023. 3. The First Information Report in connection with which the petitioner was arrested, was lodged on 13.05.2026, by one Nitesh Sharma, before the Officer-In-Charge of Ghograpar Police Station, stating inter alia, that while he was going towards Ghograpar, by driving his vehicle, another car followed him and by blocking his way, compelled him to stop his car on National Highway. Thereafter, he submitted that the moment he stopped his car, the unknown persons coming out of the other car knocked at his door window and asked him about the road to Guwahati and when he confronted the said persons, the unknown persons came inside his vehicle and assaulted him. He then stated that he somehow got out of the car and upon shouting for help few passersby stopped and then the miscreants left the place of occurrence. Mr Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated three grounds for releasing the petitioner on bail. He submits that procedures under Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, was not followed as well as Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS. He submits that although the arrest memo was issued to the petitioner, but the same was not attested by any witness. He further submits that although the grounds of arrest were given to the petitioner, but the grounds of arrest which would be given to the relative of the petitioner under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, was not served upon them. 4. Mr R J Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on perusal of the scanned copies of the TCR, has submitted on the facts of the case, that there are Page No.# 3/5 witnesses, who had seen the petitioners assaulting the informant by getting inside his car. As far as violation of Section 36 of the BNSS is concerned, he submits that the same is a procedure and violation of the same has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. He also submits that the grounds of arrest under Section 47 of the BNSS, were given to the petitioner, but the grounds of arrest meant to be given to the relatives of the petitioner, the same was processed by way of sending the same through WT message to the concerned Police Station at Jharkand since the petitioner was from Jharkhand. He further submits that he could not find in the records as to what happened after the WT message was sent to the concerned Police Station. He further submits the petitioner has moved a bail application before the learned Trial Court, but in the said application, none of these grounds were taken by the petitioner, to which the petitioner replied that those grounds were present when the application was filed before the Trial Court. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court finds as follows: (i) With regard to the arrest memo that was issued to the petitioner in compliance of Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court finds that the same has been given to the petitioner, but the attestation by one witness who can be a member of the family of the person arrested or a respected member of the locality was not seen although the countersignature by the person arrested was there. As such, it is seen that the mandatory provision of Section 36 is not followed in the instant case. Page No.# 4/5 (ii) With regard to the other legal point to the effect that grounds of arrest under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, this Court finds that the same was given to the petitioner, and all the necessary particulars of the case are incorporated therein. However, the submission of the learned counsel that the same was in English language, does not hold good since the petitioner has put his signature in the English language in the arrest memo as well as in the grounds of arrest. As far as the notice under Section 48 is concerned, the same is seen in the records of the case, but the same reflects that the Officer-In-Charge of Ghograpar Police Station has stated that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the said case and that he has the right to be defended by a lawyer, was intimated to the Officer-In-Charge, Barhi, Jharkhand, by way of a WT message, but the further requirement that the relatives of the accused person have to be apprised of, the grounds of arrest were not reflected in the same. As such, there appears a violation of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. 6. In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- each, with two sureties, out of which, one should be local, to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Nalbari, under the following conditions:- i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the Court, as and when called for. ii) the petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case, and/or influence the witnesses; and Page No.# 5/5 iii) the petitioner shall not leave his residence without prior permission of the Investigating Officer/concerned Court. 7. However, it is made clear that on failure of the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid conditions, the bail order shall automatically get cancelled. 8. Bail Application stands disposed of. 9. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant