Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 7225 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The State Of Assam on 11 September, 2025

                                                                          Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010174322025




                                                                   2025:GAU-AS:12559

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./2627/2025

            SRI SONGJA RONGPI ALIAS CHANGPI RONGPI
            S/O - HAKIM RONGPI, R/O LINDOK RONGPI GAON, P.O CHOWKIHOLA, P.S.
            - CHOWKIHOLA, DIST. - KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782470

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M KALITA, MR. A PHUKAN,MR. N M DAS,MR. J
HATIMURIA

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                           BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

11-09-2025

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

Page No.# 2/8

2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Sri Songja Rongpi @ Changpi Rongpi who has been arrested in connection with Sessions Case Type 1 (SC T1) No. 04/2025 under Sections 302/120B IPC read with Sections 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024, pending before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu.

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

4. It is submitted by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel that the present petitioner got arrested in connection with this case on 20.10.2024 and since last 10 months 22 days he is in custody. The case is already charge sheeted on 18.01.2025 against 5 numbers of arrested accused persons, but till date the prosecution could not examine any of the witnesses out of 50 cited witnesses.

5. He further submitted that 3 (three) co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and considering the case of the petitioner in the same footing, his prayer for bail may be considered. However, being the permanent resident of the address locality, he will regularly appear before the learned Trial Court and will face the trial, if he is granted with the privilege of bail.

6. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel raised the issue of non furnishing of the ground of arrest while issuing the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo. Citing the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Vihaan Kumar (supra) and Prabir Purkayastha (supra), it is submitted that furnishing the ground of arrest is mandatorily required and due to non compliance of such mandatory requirement, violates the right of the accused petitioner guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 (1) of the Constitution of India.

7. He further submitted that except the name, case number and Sections of Page No.# 3/8

law under which the petitioner was arrested, no other particulars of the offence is mentioned in detail in the grounds of arrest in writing, which is mandatorily required to be provided to the person who got arrested and it is the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and the accused has the right to be informed about the ground of his arrest in writing. But, here in the instant case, from the notice provided to the accused, it is seen that no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo, which may be a good ground for considering the bail of the present petitioner. Apart from that his period of long incarceration may also be considered and he may be allowed to go on bail.

8. Mr. Baishya, learned Addl. PP submitted in this regard that it an admitted fact that there was no detail description of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused petitioner, but the notice was duly served on the accused petitioner under Section 50 CrPC as well as the arrest memo was also issued to him. The accused was also identified the witnesses when TIP was conducted.

9. He further submitted that in the present case petitioner was arrested only on the strength of transit warrant and from the order dated 21.10.2024, it reveals that the accused petitioner was produced before the Court of learned Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu by the I.O. who was on transit remand as per the order passed by the learned JMFC No.2, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu in connection with the present case. It also reveals from the order passed by the learned Trial Court that the transit order along with the arrest memo etc., were produced before the learned Magistrate at the time of his production before sending the petitioner to judicial custody, he was also heard and the offence narrated to him, when he stated that his family members may not be able to Page No.# 4/8

engage a counsel for him and considering this aspect, the learned Trial Court had also appointed one LADC, Karbi Anglong for his defence and considering all these aspects, the learned JMFC had passed the order of police remand and subsequently, the accused was forwarded to judicial custody.

10. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that it is not a case that the present petitioner was not aware about the offence which was alleged to have been committed by him, rather, he was arrested on the strength of the transit warrant, who was also under transit remand as per the order of the learned JMFC, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu.

11. Mr. Baishya further submitted that in the case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. passed in Crl. Appeal No. 2808/2025 it has been held that "if a person is arrested on warrant, the grounds for reasons for arrest is the warrant itself, if the warrant is read over to him that is sufficient compliance with the requirement that he should be informed of the grounds of arrest."

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that there may be 50 numbers of witnesses, but the case already been charge sheeted and the long list of Page No.# 5/8

witnesses cannot be a ground for bail, as claimed by the petitioner.

14. 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. 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.

15. Accordingly, it is submitted by Mr. Baishya, that only considering the ground of long incarceration, long list of witnesses cannot be the ground for consideration of the bail, wherein, the accused petitioner was arrested with the Page No.# 6/8

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.

16. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Trial Court record and other annexures filed along with the petition.

17. It is a fact that the accused was behind the bar for more than 10 months and till date prosecution has not examined any of the witnesses out of 50 cited witnesses and it is also an admitted fact that while issuing the notice under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo there is no detail description of the grounds of arrest, but the name of the accused and other particulars of the case are mentioned in the ground of arrest and the signature of the accused is also available in the notice issued to him under Section 50 CrPC as well as in the arrest memo.

18. Further, after the incident the accused was not found in the address locality and he was subsequently, got arrested in connection with this case only on the strength of transit warrant and prior to his arrest he was under transit remand as per the order of the learned JMFC, JMFC No.2, Kanchipuram District, Tamil Nadu.

19. Thus from the entire circumstances of the case it cannot be denied that he was aware about the grounds of arrest on which he was forwarded to police remand as well as to judicial custody. More so, the learned Addl. PP has rightly pointed out that while passing the order of police remand, the learned Trial Page No.# 7/8

Court had made a detail discussion about his arrest and also from its order it also reveals that he was heard by the learned JMFC and after considering his submission one LADC was also appointed on his behalf and before sending him to police remand the LADC was also heard who was appointed by the Court on behalf of the petitioner.

20. So, considering all these aspects of the case, 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 forwarded to police remand as well as to judicial custody.

21. Further considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kasireddy Upender Reddy (supra) and Sri Darshan (supra) it is seen that there may not be any ground of arrest in case of person arrested on warrant and it is seen that it is also observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Darshan (supra) as referred above, that substantial compliance may serve the purpose of communication of the ground of arrest and in the present case, it is seen that he was fully aware about the ground of arrest which was communicated to him.

22. So considering all aspects of the case, it cannot be held that the petitioner was in dark about the reasons or grounds of his arrest, rather, he was fully aware about the same and also offered the opportunity of hearing before the learned Trial Court.

23. Considering all these and the gravity of the offence and also considering the probability of hampering or tampering with the evidence of the vital witnesses, I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail solely on the ground of long incarceration.

Page No.# 8/8

24. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Sri Songja Rongpi @ Changpi Rongpi in connection with Sessions Case Type 1 (SC T1) No. 04/2025 under Sections 302/120B IPC read with Sections 25(1B)

(a)/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024 stands rejected.

25. This bail application accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant