Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010100312026 2026:GAU-AS:7578 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1328/2026 SIBASISH SANDILYA FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THEFOREST RANGE OFFICER,NORTH LAKHIMPUR RANGE,DISTRICT - LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM,SON OF LATE BIMAN SARMAH,RESIDENT OF NAMGHAR BYE LANE-03,HOUSE NO. 08, P.O. DISPUR,P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI,DISTRICT - KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 01.06.2026 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the petitioner Sibasish Sandilya has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in ACB P.S. Case No.07/2026, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The petitioner, a Forest Range Officer, in the office of the Forest Range Office, North Lakhimpur Range was arrested while he was taking bribe. There is no dispute that on 01.05.2026, the petitioner was caught red handed at about 2.45 P.M. But the arrest memo shows that he was arrested at 8 P.M. on that day. 4. Mr. Mahajan has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416. Paragraphs 35, 36 and 37 of the said judgment are quoted as under: “35. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to issue the following requirements to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as preventive measures: (1) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register. (2) That the police officer carrying out the arrest of the arrestee shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may either be a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It shall also be countersigned by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest. (3) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or interrogation centre or other lock-up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee. (4) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the Legal Aid Organisation in the District and the police station of the area concerned telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest. (5) The person arrested must be made aware of this right to have someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained. (6) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the Page No.# 3/5 arrest of the person which shall also disclose the name of the next friend of the person who has been informed of the arrest and the names and particulars of the police officials in whose custody the arrestee is. (7) The arrestee should, where he so requests, be also examined at the time of his arrest and major and minor injuries, if any present on his/her body, must be recorded at that time. The “Inspection Memo” must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer effecting the arrest and its copy provided to the arrestee. (8) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a trained doctor every 48 hours during his detention in custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctors appointed by Director, Health Services of the State or Union Territory concerned. Director, Health Services should prepare such a panel for all tehsils and districts as well. (9) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent to the Illaqa Magistrate for his record. (10) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation. (11) A police control room should be provided at all district and State headquarters, where information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board. 36. Failure to comply with the requirements hereinabove mentioned shall apart from rendering the official concerned liable for departmental action, also render him liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. 37. The requirements, referred to above flow from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and need to be strictly followed. These would apply with equal force to the other governmental agencies also to which a reference has been made earlier.” 5. Mr. Mahajan has also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court that was delivered in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “7. When is a person in custody, within the meaning of Section 439 CrPC? When he is in duress either because he is held by the investigating agency or other police or allied authority or is under the control of the court having been remanded by judicial order, or having offered himself to the court's jurisdiction and submitted to its orders by physical presence. No lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439. This word is of elastic semantics but its core meaning is that the law has taken control of the person. The equivocatory quibblings and hide-and-seek niceties Page No.# 4/5 sometimes heard in court that the police have taken a man into informal custody but not arrested him, have detained him for interrogation but not taken him into formal custody and other like terminological dubieties are unfair evasions of the straightforwardness of the law. We need not dilate on this shady facet here because we are satisfied that the accused did physically submit before the Sessions Judge and the jurisdiction to grant bail thus arose.” 6. Mr. Mahajan has further relied upon Director of Enforcement v. Subhash Sarma, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 240. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quotes as under: “8. Once a Court, while dealing with a bail application, finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated while arresting the accused or after arresting him, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. The reason is that the arrest in such cases stands vitiated. It is the duty of every Court to uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.” 7. Mr. Das has submitted that in this case, all the provisions of law are complied with and the arrest of the petitioner is correct in the eye of law. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. 9. Here, in this case, the track memorandum shows that the petitioner was apprehended at 2.45 P.M. While the arrest memo shows that he was arrested at 8 P.M. This is a clear violation of the guidelines laid down by D.K. Basu (supra). There is also a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 10. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 32 days. This Court is of the opinion that in this case, the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner should also be considered as a ground for releasing him on bail. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the bail application of the petitioner is allowed. 12. The petitioner Sibasish Sandilya who was arrested in ACB P.S. Case No.07/2026, under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, shall be released on bail Page No.# 5/5 of ₹50,000/- with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati. With the aforesaid direction, the bail application is disposed of. Case Diary shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant