Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020008912025 2026:GAU-NL:92 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./35/2025 SHRI RONGPANGKANGZUK R/O MAJAKONG WARD MOKOKCHUNG. PO/PS MOKOKCHUNG WOMEN PS- 798601. NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:KETIYALA COMPLAINANT WIFE OF AKANGLEMBA R/O H.NO. 279 MAJAKUNG WARD MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : S P RAILI, MEYOHU CHUZHO,KETHOKHRIENUO Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 03.03.2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.P. Raili as well as Ms. Livika, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/6 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed praying for bail to the accused person/Rongpangkangzuk. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed two bail applications before the learned Special Court, POCSO and both the bail applications have been dismissed by Order dated 17.10.2025 and 04.12.2025 respectively. In the first bail application before the Special Judge/POCSO, Mokokchung, Nagaland, the petitioner had taken the ground that the accused was suffering from multiple health complications and that due to lack of medical facilities in the District Hospital, Mokokchung, it was prayed that he may be released on bail on medical ground. The same was rejected by the learned Trial Court as the Court had held that the accused was given proper medical attention and he had even been admitted in the hospital and that the jail authorities are capable of giving medical attention to the petitioner/accused. 4. In the second bail application, the petitioner had raised the ground that the accused was not provided the grounds of arrest as mandated under Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application by Order dated 04.12.2025, with the observation that the grounds of arrest was informed to the accused person in the presence of his two in- laws and that in the statements of both in-laws of the accused it was reflected that the accused was arrested only after explaining to him the grounds of arrest and the rights of arrested person. Therefore, the court found that despite the omission of obtaining the signature of accused on the format he was informed of the grounds of his arrest and also Page No.# 3/6 intimated to his relatives, hence the second application was also rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the same ground in the present application. He has stated that in the format for information of grounds of arrest, under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 47 and 48, BNSS, which is annexed as Annexure D at page 19 of the application, the signature of the accused is absent and this indicates that the same was not served upon him. Another ground which the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken is that the accused is a senior citizen aged about 65 years and he is suffering from multiple-age related ailments requiring continuous and specialized medical care. It is stated that the District Hospital, Mokokchung lacks the necessary facilities such as CT Scan, MRI, etc and, therefore, it is also prayed that the accused may be allowed to go on bail so that he can undertake proper medical treatment outside the District of Mokokchung. 5. The third ground which the petitioner has taken is that the Charge- sheet has already been submitted and the trial is likely to be prolonged as there are 16 prosecution witnesses to be examined, therefore, it is stated that the custodial interrogation or the continued custody of the petitioner is no longer required in the present case. And, therefore, it is prayed that the accused may be allowed to go on bail on any terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. Livika has produced the updated Case Diary and submits that the format for information of grounds of arrest in compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 47 Page No.# 4/6 and 48 of the BNSS is in two parts. One is the portion to be signed by the accused and in the next document is the arrest intimation to the family members/friend, etc. under Section 48 of the BNSS. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of the intimation format, which is enclosed along with the format for information of grounds of arrest. It is shown that in the arrest intimation the accused has put his signature and it is also seen that the date of the two forms are signed on the same date, i.e., 01.09.2025. It was only due to inadvertence that the signature of the accused was not obtained on the first page. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the Section 161 CrPC Statements of the two in-laws of the accused person also clearly reflects that the accused was arrested by the police after explaining the grounds of arrest to him regarding molestation and sexual assault upon the minor. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, submits that the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the provision of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS has been complied with. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that as far as the medical condition of the accused is concerned, the concerned jail authorities are taking care of the same and the accused is not suffering from any serious ailment. In case there is any serious ailment, the Trial Court can constitute a medical board and thereafter the case of the petitioner can be referred to the medical board, if necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the present case relates to a very serious offence under the POCSO act, wherein a minor child has been assaulted and further she submits that charge has also been framed and the trial has commenced. However, on the last occasion when the prosecution witnesses had come for adducing Page No.# 5/6 evidence, the counsel for the accused was not present and, therefore, the matter had to be adjourned and costs were imposed on the defence counsel. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that this is not a fit case where the bail application of the accused person can be allowed. 8. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the Case Diary as well as the Trial Court Records. The Court has noted the Section 161 CrPC statements of the in- laws of the accused person, i.e., one Mr. Yangerliba and Mr. Tareptsuba. Both these in-laws have stated before the police that the accused person was arrested only after explaining the grounds of his arrest to him regarding molestation and sexual assault upon a minor. This Court has also seen that the accused has put his signature on the arrest intimation to family members, which was given along with the format for information of grounds of arrest; both the formats are dated 01.09.2025. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused was not made aware about the grounds of arrest nor the details about the offences for which he was arrested. This Court finds that there has been no violation of the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India or the provisions of Section 47 and 48 of the BNSS. 8. Further, this Court has also seen from the records that the victim is a seven (7) year old minor, who is also a neighbor of the accused person. Moreover, the trial has already commenced and therefore releasing the accused person at this stage would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the petition stand dismissed. Page No.# 6/6 9. Registry shall send back the Trial Court Records. 10. The instant bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant