Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010077502026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1060/2026 SHARAT DAS S/O SHRI KHAGEN DAS R/O VILL- KALMOUGURI,P.O. KALMOUGURI, PIN-784178, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:SMTI. JYOTIKA DAS W/O SHRI AMAR JYOTI DASR/O VILL- KALMOUGURI NA- GHARIYA P.O. KALMOUGURI PIN-784178 P.S. GOHPUR DIST. BISWANATH ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORDOLOI, MS M NIROLA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A PHUKAN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R-2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 22.05.2026 Page No.# 2/4 1. Heard Mr. P. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the petitioner Saurav Das who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 27.08.2025 in connection with Special POCSO Case No. 91/25 under Section 65(1)of the BNS, 2023 R/W Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and learned Amicus Curiae Mr. A. Phukan for the respondent No. 2. 3. I have considered the submissions at the Bar. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind bars for 268 days. The petitioner has been highly prejudiced as Section 36 of the BNSS, 2023 has not been complied with. Annexure-D of the petition clearly reflects that there is no signature of any witness or family members as mandated by law. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that only the statement of the victim has been recorded. There is every possibility that other witnesses may also be influenced. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied on the decision of this Court in Jabbar Hussain Vs. The State of Assam, wherein vide order dated 23.04.2026, it has been held that:- “The purpose of the arrest memo under Section 36 BNSS is that it is the formal record of the deprivation of the liberty of the arrestee, and its primary purpose is to provide legal accountability for the arrest itself. Therefore, preparation of the memorandum of arrest mentioning the date, time, place of arrest as well as the place where the petitioner is being detained are all mandatory requirements of law. The necessity of taking the signatures of witnesses of the kind mentioned in Section 36 on the arrest memo is obviously an act of attestation of the particulars mentioned in the memo of arrest. That being the position of law, if the Page No.# 3/4 said particulars as available in the arrest memo with regard to date, time, and place of arrest, etc., are communicated to the family member/friends/nominated person by way of a notice under Section 48 BNSS, the same purpose is served.” 6. Learned Amicus Curiae has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chhotey Lal reported in (2011) 2 SCC 550, wherein it has been held that:- “In Vijay v. State of M.P., decided recently, this Court referred to the above two decisions of this Court in Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain and Gurmit Singh and also few other decisions and observed as follows: (Vijay case, SCC p. 198, para 14) "14. Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that the statement of the prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix." 7. It is true that in this case, Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 has been complied with. It is also true that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner. 8. However, I have considered the submission that the petitioner has been behind bars for 268 days. I have considered the submission that his custodial detention may not be required as he is willing to co-operate with the remaining part of the trial. I have also considered the submission that the statement of the victim has already been recorded. 9. Considering the entire aspect of the matter, petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with 2 (two) local suitable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that: (i) The petitioner shall not exercise threats to Page No.# 4/4 the witnesses or go anywhere near the vicinity of the victim, (ii) The petitioner shall not threaten the witness or tamper with the evidence, and (iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial. 10. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 11. In terms of the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant