Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 7776 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 14 October, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010208002025




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:13741

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3173/2025

            SAIDUR RAHMAN
            S/O- JABAR ALI
            R/O- VILL. OJA GAON
            P.S. DHULA
            DIST. DARRANG, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. A AHMED, MR. S UDDIN,MR A ALAM,MR. A A MONDAL

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                           BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

14-10-2025

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Saidur Rahman who has been arrested Page No.# 2/7

in connection with Sessions Case No. 109/2023 arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 219/2022 under Sections 460/392/302 IPC, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. Scanned copy of the TCR has already been received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel that earlier bail application for the present petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025, wherein basically it was considered that the accused was arrested on the strength of warrant issued against him and as per the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2808/2025 that if a person arrested on a warrant, the grounds for reasons for the arrest is the warrant itself and if the warrant is read over to him, that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of his arrest. But on enquiry made by him it has come to the knowledge that the present petitioner was not arrested on the strength of warrant but he was only under the transit remand from 25.02.2025 and subsequently, he was produced before the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2025 on the strength of transit remand.

5. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel that the period where the accused was on transit remand, cannot be considered as a warrant to consider that he was read over and explained about the grounds of arrest on the strength of warrant issued against him. Further he submitted that from the notice issued to the accused petitioner it also reveals that the notice was issued to him on 25.02.2025 itself and the arrest memo was also issued on the same day i.e., the notice issued to the accused petitioner prior to his arrest and it is not a case that he was arrested only on the strength of NBWA.

Page No.# 3/7

6. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner is in custody since last 2 years, 7 months, 12 days and the last witness was examined on 01.02.2025, but, thereafter, no witness turned up in the present case and the next date is fixed for evidence on 03.12.2025, but there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial within 6 months as directed by this Court after rejection of his earlier bail application.

7. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel further submitted that the accused is a permanent resident of the address locality and he will appear before the learned Trial Court on each and every date to be fixed by the Court and will contest the case accordingly.

8. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that it may be a case for arrest of the accused petitioner through the transit warrant but in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) has not categorized the nature of warrant and in the instant case also it is an admitted fact that the accused petitioner got arrested from a different State on the strength of transit warrant and he was also allowed to remain on transit warrant till his production before the learned Trial Court.

9. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP further submitted that from the production order passed by the learned Trial Court it also reveals that the accused was heard and accordingly he also submitted that his family members will engaged counsel for him to defend his case. Thus, from the production order itself it is seen that the accused was heard by the learned Trial Court before remanding him for police custody and at the same time he was also given the opportunity of engaging a counsel to defend his case.

Page No.# 4/7

10. Thus, it is seen that though there is no written grounds of arrest in the notice issued to the accused petitioner, but it is seen that there are sufficient compliance and the accused was heard by the learned Trial Court and also gave the opportunity to engage his counsel by the family members. Thus, there is sufficient compliance and hence, it cannot be stated that there is any violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

11. Further, Mr. Baishya also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1201 and emphasized on paras 20.1.20; 20.1.3; 20.1.4; 20.1.5; 20.4; 20.04.1; 20.4.2 and in para 20.04.1 it has been expressed the view that "mere filing of charge sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail and mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating materials gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.

12. Mr. Baishya further submitted that the provisions does not prescribe a specific form or insist upon the written communication in every case and the substantial compliance may fulfill the object of furnishing the ground of arrest and the grounds of arrest not inflexible requirement in all circumstances. Paras 20.1.2; 20.1.3; 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 read as under:--

20.1.2. Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that "no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice". Similarly, Section 50 (1) Cr.P.C.

requires that "every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest.

20.1.3. The constitutional and statutory framework thus mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest - but neither provision prescribes a specific form or insists upon written communication in every case.

Page No.# 5/7

Judicial precedents have clarified that substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient, unless demonstrable prejudice is shown. 20.1.4. In Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana 22, it was reiterated that Article 22(1) is satisfied if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing. Similarly, in Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh 23, it was observed that when arrest is made pursuant a warrant, reading out the warrant amounts to sufficient compliance. Both these post- Pankaj Bansal decisions clarify that written, individualised grounds are not an inflexible requirement in all circumstances.

20.1.5. While Section 50 Cr.P.C is mandatory, the consistent judicial approach has been to adopt a prejudice-oriented test when examining alleged procedural lapses. The mere absence of written grounds does not ipso facto render the arrest illegal, unless it results in demonstrable prejudice or denial of a fair opportunity to defend.

13. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that only considering the ground of long incarceration, wherein, the accused petitioner was arrested with the allegation of committing a brutal murder in conspiracy with the other accused persons. Accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and there may be every possibility of hampering or tampering with the witnesses of the case, if he is released on bail.

14. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the scanned copy of the TCR and other annexures filed along with the petition.

15. It is admitted fact that the accused petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years, 7 months, 12 days and the case is still at the stage of recording of evidence and in the same time it is also an admitted fact that there is no written communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused petitioner while issuing notice under Section 50 and 50 A of the CrPC.

16. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused was not arrested under NBWA, but he was under transit remand and Page No.# 6/7

after his arrest, he was produced before the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2025. But to arrest a person from another State, the police or the I.O. requires a transit warrant and on the basis of which prayer for transit remand may be made before the concerned Court.

17. Further in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) it is admittedly not categorized about the nature of warrant issued to the accused person. That apart, it is also seen from the record itself that at the time of his production, the accused was heard by the learned Trial Court and after hearing him and on being satisfied, he was forwarded to police remand and in the same time, the accused also pleaded before the learned Trial Court that his family members will engage a counsel to defend his case.

18. Thus, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner was not aware about the incident or the grounds of arrest on which he was arrested, who was on transit remand and subsequently, he was forwarded for police remand as well as to judicial custody.

19. Further considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Darshan (Supra), it is seen that there may not be any written communication of the grounds of arrest but the substantial compliance may serve the purpose of communication of grounds of arrest and in the present case also it is seen that he was fully aware about the grounds of his arrest, which was communicated to him and from the order of the learned Trial Court it also reveals that he was fully aware about the case for which he got arrested on the basis of transit warrant and was brought before the learned Trial Court only on transit remand.

20. Considering all these aspects of the case, gravity of the offence and also Page No.# 7/7

considering the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidences of vital witnesses of the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

21. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Saidur Rahman in Sessions Case No. 109/2023 arising out of Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 219/2022 under Sections 460/392/302 IPC, presently pending before the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati stands rejected.

22. With the above observation, this bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant