Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010272302025 2026:GAU-AS:1914 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4031/2025 FUL CHAND @ FUL CHAND MONDAL S/O RAHOM ALI,BRR/O VILL RANGAPANI, P.S.MANKACHAR, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARAMANKACHAR, ASSAM, PIN - 783131. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SAKERA KHATUN W/O LATE ZIL HOQUE R/O VILL- FUTAMARI P.S. MANKACHAR DIST. SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR ASSAM PIN-78313 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S RAHMAN, MR A N IQBAL Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. S. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant. Also heard Mr. DP Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Page No.# 2/4 the State and Mr. D. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, by the accused applicant, namely, Ful Chand @ Ful Chand Mondal praying for bail in connection with Special (P) Case No. 46/2025, arising out of Mankachar P.S. Case No. 58/2025 under Section 96/127(2)/65(1) of BNS, 2023, r/w Section 4(1) of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. On the basis of an FIR lodged on 13.04.2025 by the informant, namely, Sakera Khatun alleging that her 16 years old daughter was kidnapped by the accused applicant and taken her to an unknown place and confined her for some time. It was alleged that later on the minor girl was released. On the basis of the FIR, the police registered, Mankachar Police Station Case No. 58/2025 under the aforementioned sections. 4. After completion of the investigation, the Charge Sheet vide C.S. No. 93/2025 dated 31.05.2025 was submitted against the accused applicant. On 19.07.2025, learned Special Judge, South Salmara, Mankachar framed charges against the accused applicant under Section 96/127(2)/65(1) of BNS with added Section 4(1) of POCSO Act against the accused applicant. The status of the case as submitted by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that the evidence is yet to be started. In the instant case, the TCR in connection with Special (P) Case No. 46/2025, is produced before this Court. 5. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the accused applicant submits that the accused applicant was arrested on 14.04.2025 and since then, he is behind the bars and the trial is yet to be proceeded by examination of the witnesses. He further submits that there is no offence under POCSO has been alleged in the FIR by the informant. He submits that in the instant case, the Page No.# 3/4 notice under Section 47 of BNSS was not issued to the accused as no grounds of his arrest is mentioned in the aforesaid notice while arresting him. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that since the mandate of Section 47 of BNSS is not complied with while issuing the said notice, the same goes to the root of the matter making the whole arrest of the accused applicant illegal and on that ground only, the accused applicant is liable to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are materials against the accused applicant for his involvement in the alleged offence as narrated in the FIR. He submits that the victim as well as the informant in the instant case are yet to be examined before the Trial Court. Therefore, this is not a stage where the accused applicant should be granted bail. However, he fairly submits that the grounds of arrest under Section 47 of BNSS were not provided to the accused applicant while arresting him. 7. Mr. Ullah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 has also been confirmed that the grounds were not provided in Section 47 notice. 8. This Court has perused the records produced before this Court as well as heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. On perusal of the records, this Court has noticed that the grounds of arrest under Section 47 are not provided to the accused applicant while arresting him. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of cases as well as this Court has already held that the grounds of arrest has to be mandatorily given to the accused applicant while serving the notice under Section 47 of BNSS and in the event of non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 47, the accused applicant gets an unfettered right to be released on bail as the arrest itself becomes illegal. Page No.# 4/4 9. In view of the aforesaid, taking into account of the fact that mandate of Section 47 was not complied with as well as the fact of his long detention inside the jail for about 10 months, this Court is of considered opinion that the accused applicant should be granted bail at this stage. 10. Accordingly, it is directed that the above named accused applicant shall be released forthwith from the judicial custody on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two sureties of like nature to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), South Salmara, Mankachar, subject to the following conditions: - i. that, the accused applicant shall appear before the learned Trial Court as and when required during the trial of the case; ii. that, the accused applicant shall not try to get in connection with the victim girl or her family, in any manner, during the trial of the case to influence them in any manner; iii. that, the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Authority. 11. In view of the aforesaid directions, this bail application stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant