Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam on 9 February, 2026

                                                                         Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010009692026




                                                                 2026:GAU-AS:1653

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

                              Case No. : Bail Appln./158/2026

           NOKUL DAS ALIAS NAKUL DAS
           S/O LATE BIREN DAS
           R/O VILL- TADANG CHAPORIP.OP. BOGINADI, P.S. BOGINADI
           DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM



           VERSUS

           THE STATE OF ASSAM
           REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR SUBHRAJIT SAIKIA,MR. I K
BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 09-02-2026

Heard Mr. N. Hasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/6

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 22.03.2025 in connection with Sessions Case No. 81(NL)/2025, registered under Sections 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Corresponding to Boginadi P.S. Case No. 16/2025).

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

4. It is submitted by Mr. Hasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 22.03.2025 and since last 324 days he is in custody. This case has already been charge-sheeted and charge has been framed on 05.08.2025. But, till then, no witness could be examined by the prosecution out of 12 nos. of cited witnesses. Considering his period of long incarceration, the present petitioner may be released on bail.

5. Mr. Hasan also raised the issue of non-compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS. It is submitted that while issuing the notices under Sections 47 & 48 BNSS some grounds are being mentioned but those grounds cannot be considered as grounds of arrest. Rather, it may be the reasons of arrest.

6. Mr. Hasan has relied on the decision of the Apex Court passed in (2024) 8 SCC 254 [Prabir Purkayastha v. State of (NCT of Delhi)] wherein it is stated that there are difference between reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest. He further submitted that there are no particulars of offence described in the grounds of arrest issued to the present petitioner which violates the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India also entitles the accused/petitioner to go on bail.

7. In that context, Mr. Hussain relied on another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Page No.# 3/6

Court passed in case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, reported in 2025 0 Supreme (SC) 905 and relied on para 28 of the judgment which reads as follows:-

"For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case."

8. Mr. Hasan further submitted that the petitioner being the permanent resident of the addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding and will provide sufficient surety if he is granted with the privilege of bail.

9. Ms. Begum, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the accused/petitioner committed the offence and that apart it is seen that there are sufficient eye-witnesses/neighbours who saw the accused carrying axe in his hand while committing the offence. The eye-witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution and hence there is probability of hampering or tampering the witnesses if the accused/petitioner is released at this stage. Accordingly, Ms. Begum raised objection and submitted that his bail may not be considered at this stage.

10. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides it is seen that the accused/petitioner is in custody since last 324 days and in spite of framing of charge on 05.08.2025 the prosecution could not examine any witness till date. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner basically raised the issue that there is no proper compliance of Sections 47 & 48 BNSS and though the grounds of arrest has been mentioned in the notices u/s 47 & 48, those grounds cannot be considered as a grounds of arrest, rather it may be considered as Page No.# 4/6

reasons of arrest. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed on the point that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra) has specifically discussed about the difference between grounds of arrest and reasons of arrest. The reasons of arrest is indicated in Arrest Memo are purely formal parameter whereas the grounds of arrest should be the specific under which ground the accused is arrested. Here in the instant case it is seen that there is sufficient compliance of these sections and grounds under which the accused got arrested is specifically mentioned both in notice issued u/s 47 as well as Section 48 BNSS and it is also described that the weapon of murder which is the axe is also recovered by which he assaulted the accused/petitioner. More so, it is described as to how with a prior plan he committed the offence. Thus, there may not be any specific description of the murder which alleged to have been committed by the present accused/petitioner but the grounds of arrest has been mentioned in the notices issued u/s 47 & 48 BNSS.

11. In case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1201, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 20.1.3, 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 has held as under:-

"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."

Page No.# 5/6

12. More so in paragraphs 20.4.1 & 20.4.2 the Hon'ble Apex Court had also expressed the view that filing of the charge-sheet, prolonged incarceration and long list of witnesses cannot be the sole ground for considering the bail application of an accused and nature and gravity of the offence has to be considered at the time of passing the bail order. Para 20.4.1, 20.4.2 of the said judgment which read as under:-

"20.4.1. It is well settled that the mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer an indefeasible right to bail. Likewise, the mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses.

20.4.2. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court categorically held that:

"The High Court could not have allowed the bail application on the sole ground of delay in the conclusion of the trial without taking into consideration the allegation made by the prosecution in regard to the existence of prima facie case, gravity of offence, and the allegation of tampering with the witness by threat and inducement when on bail. ... non-consideration of the same and grant of bail solely on the ground of long incarceration vitiated the order..."

13. Here in the instant case it is seen that there is sufficient compliance of Sections 47 & 48 of BNSS and there is also no evidence to show that any demonstrable prejudice is caused to the other side. From the materials in the Case Diary it is seen that there are numbers of eye-witnesses who also saw while committing the offence by the accused/petitioner as well as some of the neighbours also saw him while carrying axe with him and going to the house of the informant/victim. Further, the accused/petitioner belong to the same village and hence the probability of hampering or tampering with the vital witnesses of the prosecution also cannot be denied at this stage wherein it is alleged that the accused had committed murder of the deceased by assaulting with an axe, which is also subsequently recovered by police during investigation.

14. So considering all these aspects of the case, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Hence, his bail stands Page No.# 6/6

rejected.

15. The bail application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant