Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010058812026 2026:GAU-AS:6403 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./832/2026 BIMAL BASUMATARY S/O LATE NILESWAR BASUMATARY, R/O VILL. SONARIJAN, LANGHIN TINIALI, P.S. DOBAKA, DIST. KARBI ANGLONG, 782414, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PP, ASSAM. 2:NAGESH BORO S/O LATE KARTICK BORO R/O VILL. DEOSAL P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J M GOGOI, MS. S D SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS T PARASHAR, AMICUS CURIAE, R2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 11-05-2026 Heard learned counsel Mr. J.M. Gogoi for the petitioner Sri Bimal Basumatary, who has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Page No.# 2/5 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 01.06.2024 in connection with Sessions Case No. 114/2024 under Section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, pending before the Special Judge (POCSO), Morigaon. 2. This case is based on Jagiroad Police Station Case No. 108/2024. 3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.K. Parashar and learned Amicus Curiae Ms. T. Parashar for the respondent No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the notice issued under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, marked as Annexure-2 of the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has affixed his thumb impression in the notice. The petitioner is a layman and even in the vakalatnama he has affixed his signature in Assamese. The petitioner could not follow the notice as the notice was in English and the grounds of arrest were not specifically mentioned. The petitioner could not follow the cases and the sections which were referred to. Thus, the petitioner’s right to personal liberty has been curtailed as he is behind bars on the basis of such discrepancies adopted in the investigation procedure. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah Versus State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2025 INSC 1288 where it has been held that :- “38. These above discussed principles embody the manifestation of the constitutional safeguard sought to be achieved in Article 22 of the Constitution of India which is that the arrested person must be well equipped with the information not only about his arrest but the reasons and grounds thereof prior Page No.# 3/5 to his production before the magistrate so as to enable him to effectively defend himself and oppose the police and judicial custody and even press for bail. The obligation to inform the grounds of arrest to the arrestee is thus, not just a mere procedural formality, instead it flows from the fundamental right of personal liberty which sets the further course for protection from the oppressive restrictions imposed upon the free movement in the society of an arrestee during remand. 39. A plain reading of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India shows that the intent of the constitution makers while incorporating the provisions was not to create any exceptional circumstances, instead it reads as “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest….”, it casts a mandatory unexceptional duty on the State to provide the arrested person with the grounds of such arrest with the objective to enable that person to be able to defend himself by consulting a legal practitioner of his choice. This mandate of Article 22(1) is notwithstanding any exception. This Court has made it explicit that the constitutional obligation under Article 22 is not statute-specific and it is grounded in fundamental right of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore making it applicable to all offences including those under the IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023). 40. The requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest, in the light of and under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, is not a mere formality but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard which has been included in part III of the Constitution under the head of Fundamental Rights. Thus, if a person is not informed of the grounds of his arrest as soon as maybe, it would amount to the violation of his fundamental rights thereby curtailing his right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, rendering the arrest illegal.” **** **** **** “56. In conclusion, it is held that: i) The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Page No.# 4/5 IPC 1860 (now BNS 2023); ii) The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; iii) In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the magistrate. iv) In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of 8 (Eight) witnesses has been recorded. The Medical Officer’s (PW-8) evidence corroborates the evidence of victim’s mother which clearly depicts that the victim gave birth to a child, who died as the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. It is submitted that this is a serious offence and the witnesses may be influenced by the petitioner, who is 60 (Sixty) years old. 5. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 6. It is submitted that there appears to be no possibility of influencing the witnesses because the witnesses that are to be examined now, are official witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars for around 2 (Two) years. The petitioner is an elderly person, who is aged 60 years. It is also submitted that the petitioner will cooperate with the trial and will abide by any bail conditions, however stringent, if imposed upon him. 7. Considering the submissions at the bar, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two local Page No.# 5/5 sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, who may impose conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner. 8. In terms of the above observation, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant