Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010182022026 2026:GAU-AS:13742 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2475/2026 RAJIBUR RAHMAN ALIAS RAJIBAR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O MOJIBUR RAHMAN ALIAS MAJIBUR RAHMAN, R/O NAKARI, WARD NO 1, PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2: REZZAK ALI ALIAS LAMBA S/O USMAT ALI R/O CHANDMARI SHIALMARI PS NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST LAKHIMPUR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. SANU HUSSAIN, MS J A RAHMAN,MR K THAKUR,MS P BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 16.09.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused and Ms. S.H. Bora, Page No.# 2/5 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely, Rajibur Rahman @ Rajibar Rahman and Rezzak Ali @ Lamba, who have been languishing in jail hazot, since 07.05.2026, in connection with PR Case No. 922/2026, arising out of Nagaon PS Case No. 292/2026, under Section 310(2)/311/109(2) of the BNS, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Dr. Ranjit Saikia, on 24.04.2026. 3.1. The essence of allegation made in the FIR is that on 24.04.2026, at about 01:30 am, six to seven unknown masked persons had forcibly entered into the house of the informant, situated at Seuj Path, Morikolong and assaulted him and his wife with rod, knife, etc. and thereafter, looted valuable gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. In the said incident he and his wife sustained grievous injuries. 4. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused were arrested on 07.05.2026, and since then they have been languishing in jail hazot for more than four months. Mr. Hussain also submits that the IO had completed investigation and submitted charge-sheet before the learned trial court and that they are ready to face trial and will appear before the learned trial court on each and every date and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 4.1. Mr. Hussain further submits that while effecting arrest, the IO did not serve the memo of arrest to the family members of the accused and thereby, the IO had violated provision of Section 48 of the BNSS. 5. Per-contra, Ms. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the offences are heinous in nature and subsequently, during the course of treatment, Page No.# 3/5 the wife of the informant suffered demise and thereafter, Section 302 of the IPC has been added. 5.1. Ms. Bora further submits that the accused had earlier preferred one bail application before the learned trial court and the issue of non-compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS and non-forwarding of memo of arrest to the family members or next-friend of the accused have not been raised before the learned trial court and as such, now, the accused cannot raise these issues before this Court. In support of her said contention she has referred one decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Meghalaya vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, reported in Criminal Appeal No. ………/2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 11944/2026, wherein it is held that when the accused warranted a finding on merits on the earlier occasions, it is not open for him/her to go back and raise the plea on the issue pertaining to the grounds of arrest thereafter. Under Such circumstances, Ms. Bora has contended to dismiss this application. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as 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 were arrested on 07.05.2026, and since then they have been languishing in jail hazot for more than four months. It also appears that in the meantime the IO had completed investigation and submitted charge- sheet, under Section 61(2)/ 310(2)/ 310(3)/ 311/ 109(2)/ 238(a)/ 3(5) of the BNS. 8. The offences are serious in nature. And the I.O. having found made out a prima-facie case against the accused persons, submitted charge sheet against them. And having regards to the nature and gravity of the offences and the Page No.# 4/5 punishment prescribed for the same this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to them. 9. Though the learned counsel for the accused has raised the issues of non- compliance of Section 48 of the BNSS and non-forwarding of memo of arrest to the family members of the accused, yet, it appears that these issues have been raised for the first time before this Court and earlier they had preferred one bail application before the learned trial court on 12.08.2026 and there, they had not taken such plea. But, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonam Raghuvanshi (supra), having got their bail application decided on merit, now it is not open for them to raise these issues at this stage. 10. Further, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 INSC 979; unless demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend is shown (prejudice-oriented test mere non compliance of Section 48 Cr.P.C. does not automatically render the arrest illegal or justify bail, and substantial compliance is generally sufficient. It has also been held that the more heinous the crime, especially premeditated murder involving conspiracy, kidnapping, and systematic destruction of evidence, the greater the likelihood of refusal of bail. Mere filing of the charge-sheet, a long list of witnesses, or the possibility of delay in trial cannot, by themselves, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the strength of the incriminating material, or the risk of witness tampering/interference with the trial. 11. Under the given facts and circumstances, and also balancing the personal liberty of the accused against the interests of society and the administration of justice, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused and accordingly, this bail application stands Page No.# 5/5 dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant