Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010025032026 2026:GAU-AS:5442 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./67/2026 SRI BINANDA DAHOTIYA ALIAS SWADESH ASOM ALIAS SRI BINANDA DOHUTIA (A 3) AND ANR S/O- SRI TILESHWAR DAHOTIYA,R/O - VILLAGE MOHONG GAON, P.O. - BORDUMSA, P.S. BORDUMSA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM. 2: SRI BUBUL MORAN ALIAS TIGER ASOM (A 2) S/O SRI GUPENDRA MORAN R/O DHIRAJ SUJAN P.O. NABAJYOTI P.S. BORDUMSA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM VERSUS THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY THROUGH ITS STANDING COUNSEL. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K KALITA, MS. K BASUMATARY,MR. K UDDIN,T M LAHKAR,MS. G DEKA,MR B PRASAD Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NIA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 21/04/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned DSGI, appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA). 2. This appeal has been filed under section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Act, 2008, (here and after referred to as the Act)., challenging the order dated 09/01/2026 passed by the Learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, rejecting the bail application of the appellants by order dated 09/01/2026. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 01/11/2018 at around 7 p.m., a group of six armed men wearing Army Combat dress with their faces covered, came to Bishonimukh Kherbari village and took away six villagers. They were then made to kneel down and they were fired upon. Out of the six villagers, five persons died. However, the sixth villager apparently had become unconscious on hearing the sound of gunfire and escaped death due to the attackers believing the sixth person to be dead. Due to the said incident, Saikhowaghat PS case no. 36/2018 was registered by the local Police under sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 302 and 307 IPC, section 25 (1A) and 27 of the Arms Act read with section 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The said case was thereafter taken up by the NIA. 4. On the basis of the registered case, three accused persons were arrested, i.e. the present two appellants, viz. Sri Binanda Dahotiya @ Swadesh Asom @ Binanda Dahutia, Sri Bubul Moran @ Tiger Asom and one Jintu Gogoi. However, Jintu Gogoi was discharged and charge sheet was submitted against the present appellants only, on the IO having found a prima facie case established under the above provisions of law. 5. The appellant's counsel submits that as on date, only 15 out of the 64 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court. He also submits that the appellants have been in judicial custody for the last 6 years 11 months. He also submits that there is no incriminating weapon or document seized from the two appellants by the enforcement agencies. As such, in view of the requirement of an accused being entitled to speedy trial, keeping in view Article 21 of the Constitution read with Section 436 A Cr. P.C., the appellants should be released on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that besides the grounds Page No.# 3/5 stated above, his main ground of challenge to the rejection of the bail application by the learned trial Court, is on the ground that there has been violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, grounds of arrest, in writing, has not been provided to the appellants or to their families in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799 and the decision of this Court dated 21/08/2025 in Criminal Appeal 234/2025 (NIA v. Thangminlen Mate @ Lenin Mate). 7. On the other hand, Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned DSGI, submits that the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants, is not applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, the appellants had been arrested on 07/06/2019 and that the arrest memo showed that the appellants had been verbally informed of the grounds of arrest at the time of their arrest. He submits that even though the grounds of arrest had not been given in writing, the grounds of arrest having been given verbally to the appellants, there was no violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Bail Application No. 1371/2025 (Ubaidur Rahman @ Ubaydur Rahman Vs. The State of Assam), wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 has been reflected, holding that the grounds of arrest to be communicated in writing to the accused would be mandatory applicable, only after the decision made by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (Supra), which was on 03/10/2023 Thus, the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing, prior to the decision of Pankaj Bansal (Supra), i.e. prior to 03/10/2023, could not be a ground for granting bail to the appellants. 8. The learned DSGI also submits that the appellants had surrendered to the Police with their arms and ammunitions, which implied admission of their guilt with respect to the incident that had resulted in the death of 5 villagers. Further, the FSL report on the bullets and the surrendered guns of the appellants, showed that the bullets had been fired from the guns surrendered by the appellants. The learned DSGI also submits that though prolonged pre-trial incarceration is a matter of serious constitutional concern, when a special statute has conditioned the grant of bail on fulfilment of certain conditions, the Constitutional Court Page No.# 4/5 cannot bypass or avoid the restraint provided in the special statute. In the present case, section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 1967 Act) provides certain conditions to be fulfilled prior to grant of bail and as such, unless the conditions are fulfilled, bail should not be granted, keeping in view the evidence and the FSL report, which points out to the guilt of the appellants. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 10. He accordingly submits that there being no infirmity with the decision of the Learned Trial Court, the present appeal should be rejected. 9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. In the case of Pankaj Bansal (Supra), the Supreme Court held that grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the accused. However, the Supreme Court in the above case had also clarified that the said requirement would be applicable “henceforth”, i.e. only from the date of the decision made in the case of Pankaj Bansal (Supra). As the appellants had been arrested on 07/06/2019, i.e. prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (Supra), Vihan Kumar(Supra) and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, the verbal communication of the grounds of arrest to the appellants at the time of their arrest in the year 2019, amounts to substantial compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and as such, the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest in writing in 2019, cannot be a ground for granting bail to the appellants. 11. With regard to the stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the appellants, that the appellants had undergone 6 years 11 months incarceration since their arrest, we have noticed that the sentence that can be inflicted upon the appellants, if found guilty of the crimes by the Learned Trial Court, would range from 14 years to life imprisonment to death, keeping in view section 436 A Cr.P.C. and the equivalent section 479 BNSS. We are accordingly of the view that the said provision cannot be applied for grant of bail at this stage. 12. With regard to the stand taken by the appellants’ counsel that there was no incriminating weapon or document seized from the appellants, the written objection of the Page No.# 5/5 respondents regarding the FSL reports, prima facie shows that the bullets that killed the deceased villagers had apparently been fired from the guns of the appellants. 13. Keeping all the above in view, we do not find any ground to interfere with the decision of the learned trial Court in rejecting the bail application of the appellants. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant