Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010284432025 2026:GAU-AS:205 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./4110/2025 HAREN PATGIRI S/O BHADESWAR PATGIRI R/O VILL- KOTHALMURI HAT, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BAJALI, (BARPETA), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S K NARGIS, MS. RUKMINI BARUA,MS. PADMINI BARUA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 07-01-2026 Heard Ms. S.K. Nargis, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. Page No.# 2/8 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 16.02.2023 in connection with Sessions Case No. 200/2023 arising out of Dispur P.S. Case No. 2479/2022 u/s 392/302/396/34/120(B) IPC read with Section 25(1)(a)/27 of the Arms Act. 3. It is submitted by Ms. Nargis that the earlier bail applications for the present petitioner were rejected in two occassions by this Court after perusal of the case record and Case Diary. At the time of disposal of these bail applications also the petitioner took the plea of non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest complying the provision u/s 50/50A Cr.PC. But, the present application has been filed after perusal of the case record that at the time of production of the accused/petitioner before the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon he was not provided with any counsel, rather he prayed for engaging a counsel as he was not in a position to engage counsel on his behalf before the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon. On 16.02.2023 after his production before the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon the accused/petitioner was again produced before the learned CJM, Kamrup (M) on the same day i.e. 16.02.2023 on the strength of production warrant with a prayer made by the IO for shown arrest of the present petitioner. Thus, since 16.02.2023 the accused/petitioner is in custody for the present case. She further submitted that from the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Kamrup, Amingaon it is seen that the present accused/petitioner had failed to engage the counsel to represent him as he is not in a position to engage his own counsel and accordingly the order was passed for engagement of counsel from DLSA to represent the present petitioner. In the later part of the order on the basis of the production warrant issued by learned CJM, Kamrup (M) the accused/petitioner was produced before Page No.# 3/8 the learned CJM on the same day i.e. on 16.02.2023. Though as per the order, the accused as well as the learned Advocate representing the accused was heard, but practically there was no Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the present petitioner and from the record it is seen that one Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the present petitioner by an Advocate only in the month of October, 2023. 4. Accordingly, it is submitted by Ms. Nargis that there is no compliance of Section 50 & 50A Cr.PC and there is no document to show that the accused/petitioner was provided with the grounds of arrest before his production and in the same time from the record it is seen that the family members of the accused was intimated through email regarding the arrest of the present petitioner and thus there is no compliance of Section 50/50A Cr.PC which is mandatorily required to be followed and thus it violates the rights of the present petitioner under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. She also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Vihan Kumar (supra) and Prabin Purkayastha (supra) wherein also the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed the necessity of written communication of grounds of arrest to a person who is arrested in connection with any case. 5. Ms. Nargis further submitted that there are 22 nos. of listed witnesses but, till date the prosecution could examine only 5 nos. of witnesses and in the year 2025 no single witness could be examined by the prosecution. Thus, it cannot be expected the completion of the trial within a reasonable period though already more than 2 years 10 months the accused is in custody. 6. Ms. Nargis also raised the issue that the charges framed against the present accused/petitioner along with others also a defective as the charges u/s 392/396 cannot be framed wherein the case is forwarded only against 4 nos. of Page No.# 4/8 accused/persons. More so, the evidence which has already been recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, it is seen that there is no implicating evidence against the present petitioner showing his involvement in the alleged offence. She further submitted that the murder weapon which was allegedly used at the time of commission of offence also could not be recovered by the Investigating Officer. She further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the prosecution and the case is entirely based on circumstancial evidence. To substantiate her plea he also relied on the following decisions:- i. Manoj @ Munna v. The State of Chattisgarh, reported in (2025) Supreme (SC) 2082. ii. Harjinder Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab, reported in (2025) Supreme (SC) 1373. iii. Sharad Biridhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) Supreme (SC) 181. 7. Ms. Nargis further submitted that one of the co-accused who was already granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court is regularly appearing before the Court and the present accused/petitioner is also a permanent resident of his addressed locality and hence there is no probability of his absconding rather he will regularly appear before the Court, if his bail prayer is considered. More so, his mother is also in bedridden condition and there is none to look after his mother. The accused/petitioner is also ready to provide sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Court, if he is allowed to go on bail. 8. Mr. Lahakar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that while disposing the earlier bail application the compliance of Section 50 & 50A Cr.PC was discussed in detail with an observation that there was Page No.# 5/8 sufficient compliance and the Legal Aid Counsel was also engaged in favour of the accused/petitioner to defend his case. Mr. Lahakar further submitted that the present accused/petitioner was arrested on the strength of warrant and the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others it has been held that “if a person is arrested on warrant the grounds for reasons for arrest is the warrant itself, if the warrant is read over to him that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of arrest.” 9. Mr. Lahakar also relied on the decision of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702 and emphasized on paragraphs 20.1.3, 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 of the said judgment wherein it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that – “mere absence of written grounds of arrest does not ifso facto and render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.” 10. Mr. Lahakar further submitted that defects in framing charge or the evidence available in the record are not to be considered at the stage of bail hearing, as the Court is not supposed to go for mini trial while passing the order in bail application. Thus, the detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should not be decided at the time of disposing bail application and in that context also he referred the judgment of Hon’ble Apex court passed in case of Sri Darshan (supra) and emphasized in paragraphs 20.2.2 and 20.2.3 which reads as under:- “20.2.2. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote 25, this Court held as under: “Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself”. Page No.# 6/8 20.2.3. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rahesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav 26, the Court reiterated that while detailed evaluation is not required, some reasoning must support the grant of bail, especially when the offence is grave. However, even in such cases, the reasoning must be confined to prima facie satisfaction, not merit-based findings.” 11. Mr. Lahakar accordingly submitted that there was substantial compliance of Section 50 Cr.PC and the compliance of Section 50A Cr.PC is not the mandate required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In the same time, it is also seen from the record that the notice to the family members was also issued through email. 12. Mr. Lahakar further submitted that the present accused/petitioner is a habitual offender and he has committed similar kind of offences with the allegation of dacoity and murder and hence if the accused/petitioner is released on bail at this stage, there is every possibility of absconding as well as hampering or tampering with the evidence of other vital witnesses. 13. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records and the Case Diary and the order passed in the earlier bail applications as well as the other annexures filed along with the petition. It is a fact that the earlier bail applications were rejected wherein also the issuance of notice u/s 50/50A Cr.PC was raised by the counsel for the petitioner and considering the submission made by learned Additional Public Prosecutor and on perusal of the case record it was found that at the time of production of the accused before the Court, the Court had passed the order of police remand/judicial remand only after satisfaction hearing the accused and the order of engagement of the Legal Aid Counsel was also passed in favour of the present petitioner to defend his case. But, on perusal of the record as well as considering the submission made by Ms. Nargis it is seen that the accused was produced before the learned CJM (M) on the same day i.e. on 16.02.2023 Page No.# 7/8 on the strength of production warrant with a prayer made by the I/O for his shown arrest. The order passed by the learned CJM, Kmarup, Amingaon also reveals that the defence counsel was not present at the time of his production. Further, it is also not specific as to whether on the day of production of the accused before learned CJM on strength of production warrant, any counsel was engaged in his defence though it was observed by the Court that the accused as well as the learned defence counsel was heard at the time of his remand to police custody. However, it cannot be held that he was not aware about the nature of allegation brought against him at the time of his production before the learned CJM on the strength of production warrant and he was also heard by the learned CJM before sending him to police remand/the judicial remand. However, it cannot be denied at this stage that in spite of lapse of more than 2 years 10 months the prosecution could examine only 5 nos. of witnesses out of 22 nos. of listed witnesses and it is also seen that within the entire period of 2025 no witness could be examined by prosecution. Thus, the completion of trial within a reasonable period cannot be expected at this stage. But, considering the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court that only the charge-sheet as well as list of witnesses cannot be the sole ground of considering the bail application wherein the allegation against the present petitioner is heinous in nature, where the victim was brutally killed in broad day light with conspiracy of 4/5 persons including the present petitioner. 14. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2005 0 Supreme (SC) 104], wherein it is held that “if a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Page No.# 8/8 Article 21 since he same is authorized by law.” 15. Thus only considering the length of detention of the accused/petitioner for 2 years 10 months cannot be the only ground for considering his bail application. At the same time, it has also been observed in the earlier bail application that accused was heard before he was sent for judicial custody and thus the accused was well aware about the grounds of arrest in connection with this case. However, from the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as from the record it reveals that no witness could be examined in the year 2025 and hence the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to examine the vital/relevant witnesses before examining the other seizure and official witnesses in this case so that probability of hampering or tampering of the evidence of the witnesses may be denied. 16. In view of above, the bail application for the present petition stands rejected at this stage. 17. In the same time, the learned Sessions Judge is also hereby asked to make all endeavour to examine the vital/relevant witnesses within a reasonable period preferably within 4/6 months from the date of order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant