Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam on 5 January, 2026

                                                                          Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010264402025




                                                                   undefined

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./3879/2025

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

            2: SRI BIBHISHANG RONGHANG ALAIS BIBHISON RONGHANG ALAIS
            KARDOM
             S/O HARISON RONGHANG
             R/O PANJAN
             CHOWKIHOLA
             P.S- CHOWKIHOLA
             DIST. - KARBI ANGLONG
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78247

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE P.P ASSAM.



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

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                   BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 05-01-2026 Page No.# 2/7

Heard Mr. M. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner no. 1 is behind bars since 20.10.2024 and the petitioner no. 2 is behind bars since 04.01.2025 in connection with Sessions Case Type 1 (SC T1) No. 04/2025 u/s 302/120B IPC read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27 of the Arms Act, arising out of Diphu P.S. Case No. 39/2024.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Kalita that the earlier bail application for the present petitioners was rejected by this Court after perusal of the case record and Case Diary wherein the grounds for non-communication of the grounds of arrest were also considered and accordingly the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court. However, the present petition has been filed solely on the ground that there was no proper communication of grounds of arrest made to the present two petitioners at the time of their arrest and judicial remand. The petitioner no. 1 is in custody for last 12 months and the petitioner no. 2 is in custody for last 10 months and hence considering their period of long incarceration they may be released on bail. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Kalita that there are 50 nos. of listed witnesses and out of which only 3 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and hence it cannot be expected for disposal of the case within a reasonable period.

4. Mr. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner further cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Page No.# 3/7

Maharashtra and Another in Criminal Appeal No. 2195/2025 wherein also it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 56 of the said judgment that it is the constitutional mandate informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest in all offences and the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing preferably in the language he/she understand. It is further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the grounds of arrest could not be communicated soon after the arrest, it may be informed orally. However, it could be communicated in written form atleast 2 hours prior to the production of the arrestee before the Magistrate for remand.

5. Mr. Kalita further submitted that considering the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court has also granted bail vide its order dated 18.11.2025 in Bail Application No. 2805/2025. Mr. Kalita accordingly submitted that there was no written communication on grounds of arrest while issuing notice under Sections 50/50A Cr.PC to the present petitioners and hence the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest itself is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

6. Mr. Kalita further submitted that both the accused/petitioners being the permanent resident of their addressed locality will appear before the learned Trial Court below on each and every date to be fixed by the Court and will contest the case accordingly.

7. Ms. Bora, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that the charge-sheet was submitted on 19.04.2025 and within 10.11.2025 three PWs have already been examined by the prosecution and out of which 2 witnesses are the eye witnesses. She further submitted that the case is proceeding in good pace and their period of custody for 10 months/12 months cannot be considered as a long incarceration and it has not also violated the Page No.# 4/7

mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. She further submitted that this was a brutal murder wherein both the accused/petitioners are involved and the two eye-witnesses were already examined by prosecution have implicated the petitioners involving in the alleged murder. She further submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the petition for bail may not be considered at this stage and there is every probability of hampering or tampering of other vital witnesses of prosecution if these two petitioners are released on bail at this stage.

8. Ms. Bora accordingly raised objection in granting bail to the present petitioners. She also submitted that there was sufficient compliance of Section 50/50A Cr.PC and they were provided with the notice where the signatures of the present petitioners are also available. More so, the learned Magistrate at the time of production also provided sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to engage their counsel and accordingly engaged Legal Aid Counsel for their defences.

9. Hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records and annexures along with the petition. It is seen that the earlier bail application for the present petitioners were rejected by this Court considering the nature of offence and other aspects of the case. From the earlier order passed by this Court as well as the record it reveals that the petitioners were arrested on strength of transit warrant and from the order passed by Magistrate it also reveals that prior to the arrest they were also on transit remand and thereafter the petitioners were produced before the learned Trial Court below.

10. Accordingly, it is observed in the earlier order passed by this Court that the petitioner was arrested on warrant and in view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Page No.# 5/7

case of Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 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."

11. More so, as discussed in the earlier bail order there was sufficient/substantial compliance of communication of grounds of arrest to the present petitioners and it cannot be held that the petitioners were in dark about the grounds of arrest. More so, after their production before the learned Court below they were also provided with an opportunity to engage their counsels and the Legal Aid Counsels were also provided to the petitioners for their defence before their remand.

12. In case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan reported in (2025) 0 Supreme (SC) 1201 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 20.1.2, 20.1.3, 20.1.4 and 20.1.5 has held 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 Page No.# 6/7

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. In the present case the learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra) wherein as stated above it was held that the person so communicated with the grounds of arrest be preferably in the language he understands. But, in para 58 of the said judgment it has also been held that there existed no consistent or binding requirement mandating written communication of the grounds of arrest for all the offences. Further, it is held that the implementation of constitutional rights provided to an arrestee as engrafted under Article 22 of the Constitution of India in an effective manner should be ensured.

14. It is a fact that there was no detail description in the grounds of arrest communicated to the present petitioners but as stated above that both the petitioners were well aware about the grounds of arrest who were arrested on the strength of warrant and at the same time it is also seen that there is substantial compliance of providing grounds of arrest to both the petitioners and thus it cannot be held that the petitioners were not at all aware of the grounds of arrest rather the petitioners were hiding themselves from police arrest and for which only the transit warrant had to be issued by the Court.

15. It is also seen that there are more than 50 nos. of witnesses listed by the prosecution and out of which 3 nos. of witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution including two eye-witnesses. But, at the same time it also cannot be denied that the completion of entire trial may require some more time as there are sufficient numbers of witnesses are yet to be examined. But, only considering the long list of witnesses to be examined, the bail prayer of the Page No.# 7/7

present petitioners in such a heinous offence cannot be considered at this stage. More so, after filing of the charge-sheet in the month of April, 2025, three prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the last witness was examined in the month of November, 2025. So considering all these aspects of the case it also cannot be held that there was violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India depriving the petitioners from speedy trial.

16. In view of above, I do not find it justified to pass any order of bail at this stage. However, the learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed for speedy trial and the Court is further directed to examine the relevant/eye-witnesses, if any, prior to the examination of other formal/official witnesses so that there cannot be any question of hampering or tampering the witnesses by the present accused/petitioners if their bail prayer is considered in subsequent stage.

17. Accordingly, the bail petition for these two petitioners are hereby rejected at this stage with a direction as above to the learned Sessions Judge.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant