Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam on 1 September, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010159312025
2025:GAU-AS:11741
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./2339/2025
NURUL LASKAR AND ANR
S/O LT. ABDUL MAJID
R/O JOYPUR, P.S. HOWLY
DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM
2: NAJIB ALI
S/O LT. ABDUL MAJID
R/O JOYPUR
P.S. HOWLY
DIST. BARPETA
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. I U CHOWDHURY,MR. SAYED
SALIM AHMED,M ALAMGEER
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
ORDER
01.09.2025
Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.
Alamgeer, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Sharma, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.
2. By this application, the petitioners have prayed for bail in connection with
Session Case No. 83/2025 arising out of Howly P.S. Case No. 28/2025 registered
under Section 61(2)/103(1) of the BNS, 2023.
3. The FIR dated 02.03.2025 reveals that the petitioners alongwith one
another, who were going on a Bolero vehicle hit the motorcycle on which 2
victims were coming from their shop towards the house of one Ajimuddin and it
is stated that the petitioners in a pre-planned manner in collaboration with co-
accused, hit and knocked down the brother-in-law and nephew of the informant
due to the existing land dispute between them. It is also stated that the
petitioner had come out from the vehicle equipped with arms and assaulted on
the body of the nephew of the informant, who died on the spot while the other
victim also died during his treatment in the Barpeta Medical Hospital.
4. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners however
submits by way of his pleadings in his petition that the actual case is that the
petitioners were in fact coming on their foot after closing their business and that
on their way, they found the vehicle where the other co-accused was coming
and as such, took lift in the said vehicle and since it was night time,
unfortunately, the said vehicle hit the motorcycle, by which the brother-in-law
and the nephew of the informant was travelling and due to the said accident,
Page No.# 3/5
the victims had met their death. As such, the learned Senior Counsel submits
that the story narrated in the FIR is a concocted story. He also submits that
though notice under Section 47 was given with details of the information as
required under law, but the notice given under Section 48 of the BNS, 2023 was
given but it did not contain any details of the case as required under the law.
On these two accounts, the learned Senior Counsel prays for bail in respect of
both the petitioners.
5. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that in
the instant case, Charge-sheet was submitted on 30.05.2025 and charges were
also framed by the learned Court below on 25.07.2025 but he submits that till
date, no witnesses have been examined and he submits that the next date is
02.09.2025 for examination of the witnesses and as such, he prays that the
petitioners have been inside for 179 days and since the trial has not started and
there is no possibility of the trial been over soon since there are 28 numbers of
witnesses cited in the Charge-sheet, he has prayed for bail.
6. Mr. P. Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent
however on perusal of the Case Diary had submitted that enough materials
were collected by the Police Officer to show that it was not simply a case of
accident but the petitioners had intentionally hit the deceased persons due to
the land dispute between them.
7. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that notice under
Section 48 of the BNS was given to the petitioners and he submits that the
information given therein are sufficient for the petitioners to know the facts of
the case and he further submits that the bail may be considered only after
examination of few witnesses and not at this stage.
Page No.# 4/5
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
materials available on record.
9. On the merits of the case, it is noticed that the petitioners, after hitting
the vehicle even if it is considered as an accident, it is stated in the FIR that
they came out from the vehicle with weapon in their hands and assaulted the
victims. However, on the further submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that
notice under Section 48 of the BNSS did not contain any details of the offence,
this Court makes the following observations.
10. It is no res-integra that notice to the relatives under Section 48 of the
BNSS is a mandatory requirement and violation of the same would result in
vitiating the arrest and which would be also in total violation of Article 22(1) of
the Constitution of India.
11. In the case of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 269, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that while
informing the person arrested, arresting authority not only should furnish
grounds of arrest to the arrestee in writing but also to the family members of
the arrested person and that the same is a mandatory requirement under
Section 48 of the BNSS, 2023 and it is also observed by the Apex Court in
Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC
254, wherein the difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest
are mentioned therein. It is clearly held in the said Judgment that grounds of
arrest must constitute all the details as to under what circumstances the person
is arrested, under what sections and he should also be informed of his right to
be defended by a counsel for his remedy. It is also stated in the said Judgment
that reasons of arrest are such as the petitioner should not temper with the
Page No.# 5/5
evidence or influence the witnesses or he should not commit the same offence
again and as such, a difference between the reasons of arrest and grounds of
arrest are made in the said decisions.
12. Although the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor had submitted that grounds
of arrest under Section 48 of the BNS is given but on a bare perusal of the
same, this Court finds that the details for the offence are not mentioned in the
same. As such, this has the effect of vitiating the arrest of the petitioners.
13. In view of the same, this Court finds it fit to release the petitioners on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with 2 local sureties each of like
amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta under the
following conditions:-
1. The petitioners will appear before the Trial Court as and when called
for.
2. The petitioners will not leave their place of residence without the
permission of the learned Court mentioned above.
3. The petitioners will not influence the witnesses which are connected
with the instant case.
14. Accordingly, the Bail Application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
