Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 9 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010056162025
2025:GAU-AS:7517
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./830/2025
MD SURAJ ALI @ SOTO
SON OF MD. SAMSUL HOQUE RESIDENCE OF VILLAGE - KARCHUABORI
JHARGAON, P.S. - JAGIROAD DISTRICT - MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN - 782121.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM
2:BANESHA KHATUN
W/O- MD. AJIMUDDIN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARITIPAM
P.S. AND DIST.- MORIGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D C BORAH, MR. K M HASSAN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. D SAIKIA (AMICUS CURAIE, R-2)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
ORDER
09.06.2025
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. K. M. Hassan for the petitioner Md. Suruj Ali
@Soto who has filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with
Page No.# 2/5
prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 20.05.2024 in connection with POCSO
Case No. 106/2024 pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge arising out
of Morigaon P.S. Case No. 133/2024 under Section 376(3) of the IPC read with
Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Borthakur for the
respondent State and learned Amicus Curiae Ms. D. Saikia for the respondent
No. 2.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds of arrest were
not communicated to the petitioner in a manner that the petitioner could
understand the reasons why he was forwarded to custody. On this ground
alone, the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned Amicus Curiae have raised
serious objection stating that the case is at the fag end of the trial. The
petitioner is not entitled to bail. The evidence of 10 witnesses have been
recorded. At this fag end of the trial, it is evident that the petitioner will flee
from justice if he is enlarged on bail.
5. I have also scrutinized the Trial Court Records.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner who is a middle
aged man of 40 years committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim who
was 12 years old at the time of the incident.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. The State of Haryana and Anr reported
in 2025 O Supreme SC 283, wherein in the assenting view, it has been
observed that:-
" 2. The issue on the requirement of communication of
Page No.# 3/5
grounds of arrest to the person arrested, as mandated under
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which has also been
incorporated in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
under Section 19 thereof has been succinctly reiterated in this
judgment. The constitutional mandate of informing the grounds of
arrest to the person arrested in writing has been explained in the
case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha
(supra). The said constitutional mandate has been Incorporated in
the statute under Section 50 of the CrPC (Section 47 of BNSS). It
may also be noted that the aforesaid provision of requirement for
communicating the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is also
required to be communicated to the friends, relatives or such other
persons of the accused as may be disclosed or nominated by the
arrested person for the purpose of giving such information as
provided under Section 50A of the CrPC. As may be noted, this is in
the addition of the requirement as provided under Section 50(1) of
the CrPC.
3. The purpose of inserting Section 50A of the CrPC,
making it obligatory on the person making arrest to inform about
the arrest to the friends, relatives or persons nominated by the
arrested person, is to ensure that they would able to take
immediate and prompt actions to as soon as may be, of the
grounds for such arrest. This being the fundamental right
guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying
information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be
meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose. It may be
noted that Section 45 PMLA enables the person arrested under
Section 19 thereof to seek release on bail but it postulates that
unless the twin conditions prescribed there under are satisfied,
such a person would not be entitled to grant of ball. The twin
conditions set out in the provision are that, firstly, the court must
be satisfied, after giving an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to
oppose the application for release, that there are reasonable
grounds to believe that the arrested person is not guilty of the
offence and, secondly, that he is not likely to commit any offence
Page No.# 4/5
while on bail. To meet this requirement, it would be essential for
the arrested person to be aware of the grounds on which the
authorised officer arrested him/her under Section 19 and the basis
for the officer's "reason to believe" that he/she is guilty of an
offence punishable under the 2002 Act. It is only if the arrested
person has knowledge of these facts that he/she would be in a
position to plead and prove before the Special Court that there are
grounds to believe that he/she is not guilty of such offence, so as
to avail the relief of ball. Therefore, communication of the grounds
of arrest, as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution and
Section 19 PMLA, is meant to serve this higher purpose and must
be given due Importance."
8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a local
resident and he is willing to co-operate with the remaining part of investigation.
The petitioner is also willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed
upon him. He is the sole bread winner of his family and he is a farmer. His
family is suffering owing to his prolonged incarceration.
9. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection.
10. I have also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vihaan
Kumar (Supra). It appears that bail may be granted to the petitioner.
11. Considering all aspects, the petitioner is enlarged on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with
2 local sureties of like amount, one being a government employee to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that:-
(i) the petitioner shall not exercise threats to
the witnesses or try to influence them,
(ii) the petitioner shall not go anywhere near
the vicinity of the victim, and
(iii) the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
Page No.# 5/5
of the Court till completion of trial.
12. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Court is at liberty to
immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioner and the Trial Court may
also impose additional conditions to secure the attendance of the petitioner.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
