Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010246122025 2026:GAU-AS:670 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3647/2025 SHRI DEBANANDA CHANGMAI ALAIS DEBU SON OF LATE TULSI CHANGMAI, RESIDENT OF BOKOTA KHAMUN GAON, P.S. BOKOTA NEMUGURI, P.O. NEMUGURI, DISTRICT SIVASAGAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM 2:SMT BANTI BHUYAN RAI WIFE OF LATE BIRENDRA RAI RESIDENT OF PIYALI PATH STATION CHARIALI SIVASAGAR P.S. AND DISTRICT SIVASAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, MR S R A NASER,MR. H ROHMAN,MR G ALAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N MAHAJAN, (AMICUS CURIAE FOR R-2) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 21.01.2026 Heard Mr G Alam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. Mr N Mahajan, learned Amicus Curiae appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 2/6 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner, namely, Shri Debandra Changmai @ Debu, who has been arrested on 18.08.2024, in connection with Special (POCSO) Case No. 30/2024, corresponding to Sivasagar PS Case No. 107 of 2024, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although notices under Sections 47 and 48 were served upon the petitioner informing his arrest in connection with the said case, but the grounds of arrest or basic facts were not intimated to the applicant or his family members at the time of his arrest on 18.08.2024. The petitioner was forwarded to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivasagar, on 18.08.2024. The case record of the said Sivasagar PS Case No. 107/2024 was, thereafter transmitted to and received by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Sivasagar, on 21.08.2024. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted a charge sheet vide CS No. 103/2024, dated 31.08.2024, stating inter alia, that the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2013, was proved to have been committed by the petitioner. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar was pleased to take cognizance of offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the petitioner vide an order dated 13.09.2024 and accordingly, a Special (POCSO) Case No. 30/2024 was registered. The learned Special Judge (POCSO) framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the petitioner on 07.10.2024, and directed to issue summons to the informant and the alleged victim. Thereafter, a bail petition being Petition No. 268 of 2024, was filed by the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case before the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, which was rejected vide an order dated 21.10.2024. 4. The prosecution had examined a total of 8 (eight) prosecution witnesses, including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer, and, thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed in terms of the order dated 04.04.2025, passed in the said Special (P) Case Page No.# 3/6 No. 30/2024. The deposition of the petitioner under Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023 and Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 07.05.2025. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge called upon the petitioner to enter his defence. The statement petitioner as defence witness was recorded on 25.09.2025 and the case is now fixed for examination of the further defence witnesses. 5. During the trial of the Special (POCSO) Case No. 30/2024, a petition No. 362/2024 was again filed on behalf of the applicant for releasing him on bail in connection with the said case, but the same was rejected vide an order dated 09.12.2024. Subsequently, another petition No. 187/2025 was filed for releasing the petitioner on bail, which was also rejected vide order dated 08.04.2025. After recording of the deposition of the applicant under Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) by the learned Trial Court, a Petition No. 476/2025 was again filed for releasing him on bail. In the said petition, a plea was taken that the notices served under Sections 47/48 of the BNSS, 2023, did not contain the grounds of arrest or basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the applicant in the said case. However, the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar was pleased to reject the said bail petition No. 476/2025, vide an order dated 15.09.2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of arrest, the petitioner had not been made aware of the grounds of arrest as required under the provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, and further that the friend/family/relative of the petitioner had not been informed of the grounds of arrest etc. immediately upon the arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023, has been held to be violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arrest and further remand of the petitioner stood vitiated. He accordingly, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. Page No.# 4/6 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has been held in the case of Vihaan Kumar –Vs- State of Haryana & Another; reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269, that the requirement of informing the friend/relative of the arrested person is mandatory requirement and the violation of the same would render the arrest and further detention to be in violation of the law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied in the case of Joynul Hussen @ Joynul Hussain ad Another (AB No. 683/2025), wherein in Paragraph-12, it has been held that- “12. In the said case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that- “If the mandate of Article 22 is not followed while arresting a person or after arresting a person, it will also violate fundamental Right to Liberty granted under Article 21 and the arrest will be rendered illegal. On the failure to comply with the requirement of informing grounds to arrest as soo as may be after the arrest, the arrest is vitiated ad once the arrest is held to be vitiated, the person arrested cannot remain in custody even for a second.” 9. Mr Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has objected to the bail prayer. 9. Mr Mahajan, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the informant/respondent No. 2, states that the informant does not apprehend any influence or risk from the petitioner, if he is allowed to remain on bail. 10. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the contesting parties have been considered. 11. This Court is of the view that it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to have ensured that proper communication of the grounds of arrest of the petitioner were made. The notice served on the petitioner under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, does not Page No.# 5/6 contain any details, save and except the case number against which the petitioner was arrested. The relevant material against the petitioner which may have necessitated the arrest was not disclosed either in the notice under Section 47 or in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023. It thus, appears that there has been violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 and Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. It also appears that the prosecution evidence is complete and defence evidence has also commenced. 12. In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was behind bars since 18.08.2024, i.e., for about 1 year 5 months and 3 days, and that the respondent No. 2 does not apprehend any risk, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be granted the privilege of bail. Accordingly, this Court, directs that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000/- with two suitable sureties of the like amount, at least one who should have immovable property, to the satisfaction of the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), Sivasagar, subject to the conditions. i) The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (POCSO) without prior written permission; ii) The petitioner shall not hamper and tamper with the evidence of the case; iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. iv) The petitioner shall not try to contact the victim or the informant in any manner, whatsoever, till conclusion of the trial. v) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), as and when directed to do so; vi) the Learned Special Judge (POCSO), shall be at liberty to impose Page No.# 6/6 such other condition or conditions as may be deemed necessary to ensure the participation of the petitioner in the trial. vii) The petitioner shall not engage in any illegal activity of similar nature in the future. vi) The prosecuting authority shall be at liberty to bring any violation of the conditions imposed to the notice of the competent court and request for a recall/cancellation of bail. 13. In the event, the petitioner defaults in appearing before the learned Trial Court, on a date, which may be fixed by the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to form its own opinion whether there has been an attempt to delay the trial proceedings and to consider cancellation of the bail. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant