Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 19 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010144752025
2025:GAU-AS:11004
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2159/2025
SHIVA SATNAMI
S/O- SRI GOPAL SATNAMI.
VILL.- JUGIJAN PUB KANDULIMARI, P.S.- HOJAI, DIST.- HOJAI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM
2:PRABIN MUCHAHARY
S/O- LATE ABHICHAND MUCHARARY.
VILL.- BANGALDOBA.
P.O.- HALOADAL.
P.S.- KOKRAJHAR
DIST.-KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN-783370
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD B ISLAM, MR. S UDDIN,F KHATUN,MR A ALAM,MR S
HUSSAIN,MR. A A MONDAL
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS B CHOUDHURY, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
19.08.2025
Heard Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.
Page No.# 2/5
Sharma, learned Addl. P.P., Assam for the State. Also heard Ms. B.
Choudhury, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2.
2. By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the
petitioner, viz., Sri Shiva Satnami, has prayed for bail in connection with
Special POCSO Case No.37/2025 arising out of Fakiragram P.S. Case
No.7/2025 registered under Section 137(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with
Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
3. The F.I.R. dated 04.02.2025 lodged by the father of the victim
reveals that when the daughter of the informant aged about 14 years of
age went to her grandmother's house to celebrate Saraswati Puja, she
went missing and a search was made and she was not found and
accordingly the F.I.R. was lodged. The police after receipt of the ejahar
registered the case and during the investigation the victim girl was
recovered and the accused person was identified and arrested.
4. Mr. B. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
mandated under the law, no grounds of arrest under Section 47 as well as
under Section 48 of the BNSS were served upon the petitioner and as
such the learned counsel prays for bail on that count.
5. On the last occasion, this Court requested the learned Addl. P.P. to
go through the records and find out as to whether the grounds of arrest
were served upon the petitioner. In view of the same, the learned Addl.
Page No.# 3/5
P.P. went through the records and has fairly submitted that although
notices were issued under Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS to the petitioner
but the same do not contain the grounds of arrest as contemplated by
law.
5. Ms. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also
fairly accepts the submission of the learned Addl. P.P.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is no res integra that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of
decisions had observed that the grounds of arrest has to be furnished to
the accused person both under Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, 2023. In
the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India reported in (2024) 7
SCC 576 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a written ground
of arrest should be furnished to the accused person as a matter of course
and without exception and non-furnishing of the same would be violative
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 47 of the
BNSS. In yet another decision rendered by the Apex Court in Prabir
Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC
254, it was observed that the requirement to communicate the grounds
of arrest in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or
person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles
22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be
Page No.# 4/5
breached under any situation.
8. In view of the said judgments it is mandatory that the grounds of
arrest needs to be given to the accused person. In the instant case
although in the forwarding report it is reflected that grounds of arrest has
been communicated to the person by issuing notice under Section 47 and
to his relatives by issuing notice under Section 48 of the BNSS by way of
W.T. message but on perusal of the said notices it is found that the
requirements of law have not been followed. In the notice under Section
47 of the BNSS in the instant case the petitioner was only informed that
he was arrested under the said case and was also informed about the
offences and that the same are non-bailable and that he can submit a
petition for bail but the requirements that the details of the offences have
to be given to the petitioner which required his arrest has not been
provided to the petitioner.
9. Even in the notice under Section 48 of the BNSS, which requires the
information to the relatives of the accused person, only the Case number
and the offences was intimated to the relatives without any details under
which the accused was arrested. The same is in teeth of the judgments
rendered by the Apex Court. In view of the same, the arrest of the
petitioner and keeping him inside the jail is vitiated and he needs to be
released forthwith.
Page No.# 5/5
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
may be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special
Judge, POCSO, Kokrajhar on the following conditions :-
1) That the petitioner will not approach the victim or any near
relatives of the victim.
2) That the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or
influence the witnesses connected with the instant case.
3) That the petitioner will cooperate with the trial and would
appear before the Trial Court as and when called for.
11. The Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
