[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sarat Hira And 4 Ors vs The State Of Assam on 22 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010091262026
2026:GAU-AS:7134
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1210/2026
SARAT HIRA AND 4 ORS
S/O SRI KRISHNA KANTA HIRA
2: SRI KUSHAL DAS
S/O SRI BIREN DAS
3: SRI BAKUL DAS
S/O SRI BHARAT DAS
4: SRI NAYAN DAS
S/O SRI JINTU DAS
5: SRI TARJAN DAS @ SRI TILAK DAS
S/O LATE RAJEN DAS
ALL ARE R/O VILL- JHARIKUCHI
P.O. DIGARU
P.S. SONAPUR
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A GANGULY, MS. M ROY,MR. DHANANJAY
TALUKDAR,MR. J K DAS,MR. TAPOBRAT CHHETRI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/6
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
22-05-2026
Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. P.
Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent.
2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for
grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, namely, (i) Sri Sarat Hira; (ii) Sri
Kushal Das; (iii) Sri Bakul Das; (iv) Sri Nayan Das and (v) Sri Tarjan
Das @ Sri Tilak Das in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No. 25/2026
registered under Sections 103(1)/126(2)/189(1) /191(2)/191(3) /238 of the
BNS, 2023.
3. Case diary received. Perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Gaguly, learned counsel that the petitioners are
innocent and they are not at all connected with the offence. They were also not
named in the FIR and subsequently being the resident of that locality, their
names have been collected and they got arrested in connection with this case.
5. He further submitted that there is no proper compliance of Sections 47
and 48 BNSS Notice as per guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Vihaan Kumar (supra).
6. He further submitted that all the languages of the notices under Section 47
to the accused petitioners and 48 to the family members are same and those
cannot be considered to be as proper ground of arrest as per judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra), which should be
Page No.# 3/6
most necessarily meaningful so that the accused persons can understand the
reasons or the grounds of arrest under which he/she was arrested in connection
with the said case. Thus, there is total violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the
Constitution of India and on the same ground the petitioners are entitled for
releasing on bail.
7. Mr. Ganguly, further submitted that the accused petitioners heard about
the incident and they came later on to the place of occurrence and considering
their presence in the commotion, they got arrested in connection with this case.
It is a case mob lynching, where no proper identification was there, nor any TIP
was conducted on that regard. All the petitioners are in custody since last one
month and considering their length of detention, they may be released on bail.
He further submitted that there is no definite or specific allegation is also made
while forwarding them to the Court regarding the involvement in the alleged
crime.
8. Mr. Goswami, learned APP raised objection and submitted that this is a
case of mob lynching, wherein a 19 year old boy had to lost his life and he was
brutally murdered by these petitioners along with others. The witnesses have
specifically mentioned the names of these petitioners showing their involvement
in the alleged offence.
9. He further submitted that several numbers accused persons, who are yet
to be arrested in connection with this case, which is also unearth some other
facts of the case.
10. Mr. Goswami, learned APP further submitted that there was proper
compliance of Sections 47 and 48 BNSS wherein the details have been
mentioned under which ground they got arrested, which was duly signed and
Page No.# 4/6
certified by the I.O. Mr. Goswami, learned APP accordingly raised objection and
submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the petitioners the privilege of
bail.
11. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I
have also perused the case diary.
12. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel basically raised the issue that there was no
proper compliance of Section 47 and 48 BNSS as per guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra). But on perusal
of the record, it is seen that all the accused petitioners were provided with the
notice under Section 47 and 48 BNSS wherein the detail description of the
grounds of arrest have been mentioned in the notice issued under Section 47
and 48 BNSS. The statements which have been mentioned in those notices can
be considered as grounds of arrest, which were communicated to the accused
petitioners at the time of their arrest as well as their family members complying
the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of BNSS. Further it is seen that the grounds
mentioned in the notices under Section 47 and 48 BNSS is also written and
explained in Assamese language, which the petitioners are acquainted with.
13. From the statements made in those notices it is seen that due written
communication of the grounds of arrest and at the same time, there also found
proper compliance of Section 36 BNSS at the time of issuing the memo of
arrest.
14. Thus, it cannot be held that there was non-compliance of Section 47 and
48 BNSS or there was any violation of Articles 22(1) and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
15. From the case diary it is further seen that since last one month the
Page No.# 5/6
petitioners are in custody and the investigation is still going on and some of the
accused persons are yet to be apprehended in this case. These accused
petitioners along with other accused earlier brutally assaulted a 19 year old boy,
who lost his life instantly due to the brutal assault meted out to him by the
accused petitioners along with others.
16. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the
opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required to
unearth some more facts of the case and also to apprehend some other accused
persons of the case, who are still absconding.
17. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioners, namely, (i) Sri Sarat
Hira; (ii) Sri Kushal Das; (iii) Sri Bakul Das; (iv) Sri Nayan Das and (v)
Sri Tarjan Das @ Sri Tilak Das in connection with Sonapur P.S. Case No.
25/2026 registered under Sections 103(1)/126(2)/189(1)/191(2)/191(3) /238
of the BNS, 2023 stands rejected.
18. Return the case diary.
JUDGE
Page No.# 6/6
Comparing Assistant
