Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010046802026 2026:GAU-AS:3946 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./687/2026 SAPIOUL ISLAM ALIAS SABIOUL ISLAM S/O.- JEAL HOQUE A RESIDENT OF VILL.- 291 TANGAON PART-II, DHANUA, P.S.- MANKACHAR, DIST.- SOUTH SALMARA -MANKACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A I HUSSAIN, MD A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. M A I Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/5 2. This application is filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 200/2025, registered under Sections 318(4)/62/178/180 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3. Scanned copy of the TCR along with the Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 10.11.2025 and the charge-sheet is furnished and the charge is also framed against the present petitioner. Till date, he is in custody since last 129 days and hence considering his long incarceration, he may be released on bail. He has to prepare his defence for which consultation with the engaged counsel is also necessary. 5. Mr. Husain further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 36 BNSS while issuing the Arrest Memo wherein the signature of the relative of the accused was not taken at the time of issuing the Arrest Memo, which is mandatorily required and it will amount to a violation of Articles 21 of the Constitution of India for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 36 BNSS. In that context Mr. Hussain also relied on a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the bail was granted to the accused/persons considering the non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 36 BNSS which violates the mandate of Article 21 of Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Hussain accordingly submitted that his further custodial detention may not be required for the purpose of the trial. However, the accused being Page No.# 3/5 permanent resident of his addressed locality will appear regularly before the Court as and when the matter is fixed by the Court. 7. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that this is a very serious nature of offence wherein the case has been charge-sheeted and charge has already being framed against the present petitioner u/s 179 & 180 of BNS. Further, he submitted that about Rs. 1,36,500/- counterfeited currency were recovered from the possession of the present petitioner and from the report of the FSL also gave the positive test for counterfeited currency. He submitted that it is not a case of affecting any particular person. But, it will affect the entire economy of the State and the country. Mr. Sharma accordingly raised vehement objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage. More so, the next date of evidence is fixed on 26.03.2026 and there are less number of citied witness i.e. only 6 nos. of witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. 8. I have heard the submission made by learned counsel for both sides and also perused the case record and the TCR received from the learned Trial Court below. It is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner basically emphasised on the two issues i.e. the long incarceration and the non-compliance of notice u/s 36 of BNSS. It is seen from the record that there is sufficient compliance of Section 47 & 48 BNSS and the notice issued to the present petitioner u/s 47 & 48 BNSS, grounds of arrest is also specifically mentioned and it is elaborately stated as to why the arrest has been made in connection with this case. However, it is a fact that while issuing the Arrest Memo u/s 36 of BNSS, 2023 every detail of the arrest has been made however, no signature is obtained from Page No.# 4/5 the family members or relative of the accused/person as required under the said Section. But, it is seen from the record that there is sufficient compliance of Sections 47 & 48 BNSS, 2023 and it is seen that the accused/person was well aware of his grounds of arrest and the family members were also accordingly intimated through notice u/s 48 BNSS. 9. Thus, it is not a case that any prejudice is caused to the present petitioner for non-compliance of Section 36(b) of BNSS when there is sufficient compliance of Sections 47 & 48 BNSS and the family members or the relatives of the accused/persons were also intimated regarding the grounds of arrest. That apart, it is also seen that the Arrest Memo as well as in the Notice issued u/s 47 BNSS, the signature of the present petitioner is obtained intimating him regarding the grounds of arrest. 10. In case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1702, it has been observed that compliance of the requirement u/s 47 & 48 of BNSS is sufficient unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 11. Accordingly, it is seen that no prejudice has been caused to the present accused/petitioner only because of non-obtaining the signature of family members or relatives of the accused/petitioner complying the provision u/s 36(b) of BNSS wherein sufficient compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS is there and the family members or the relatives of the petitioner is also duly intimated regarding his arrest. 12. In view of this and also considering the nature of the offence brought against the present petitioner, this Court is of opinion that petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage and the probability of hampering or tampering of the witnesses, vis-a-vis, probability of absconding of the accused-petitioner also Page No.# 5/5 cannot be denied at this stage. 13. In view of this, the present petition stands rejected and dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant