Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur Vs the State of Assam

filed by the petitioner, namely, Manoj Kumar Basumatary @ Munition @ Mufur, who is in custody since 01.07.2024 and seeking regular bail in connection with Session Case No.73 (BGN)/2024, arising out of Bongaigaon P.S Case No.226/2024 registered under Section 302 IPC, R/W Section 25 (1-A)/27/35 Arms Act, 1959, added Section 120(B) IPC.

¶18

3. The said case is at the stage of trial wherein 8 (eight) accused persons including the present accused seeking bail, are facing trial. 78 (Seventy-Eight) witnesses are listed in the chargesheet and so far, 8 (eight) witnesses have been examined.

¶19

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the grounds of arrest were not furnished in the required format and that no notice was also issued to his relative.

¶20

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that there are incriminating materials against the present accused as well.

¶21

6. It is also submitted that as per the forwarding report, the accused and his relatives have been duly noticed. However, on perusal of the notice under Section 50 Cr.PC (as it existed then), I find that the same would not meet the requirements regarding grounds of arrest as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254: (2024) SCC Online SC 934 and Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2025) 5 SCC 799: (2025) SCC Online SC 269.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

7. The notice under Section 50 Cr.PC may be reproduced herein below –

¶24

“You are hereby informed that you are under arrest in connection with above reference case which is nonbailable to Police. So you are forwarded to the Hon’ble Court. You may engage your Advocate to submit bail petition before Hon’ble Court for bail.”

¶25

8. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State fairly submits that he could not locate the notice under Section 50A Cr.PC.

¶26

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that an order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court granting bail to a co-accused on the ground of such noncompliance after referring to Prabir Purkayastha (supra) and Vihaan Kumar (supra).

¶27

10. In this regard, it is submitted that 2 (two) out of the 8 (eight) accused have got bail.

¶28

11. In the given facts and circumstances and in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, regarding non-compliance with the requirement of grounds of arrest in the notices as laid down in the said aforesaid decisions, the accused has become entitled to bail, as his continued detention is untenable.

¶29

12. Accordingly, in such view of the matter, the above-named accused is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the concerned learned court with following conditions:

¶32

(i) That the accused shall be available during the remaining trial;

¶33

(ii) That the accused shall not, in any manner, threaten, harass, harm the informant or her family or any witnesses;

¶34

(iii) That the accused shall not hamper or tamper with any evidence.