Gauhati High Court
Rofiqul Islam vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010267522024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3850/2024
ROFIQUL ISLAM
S/O FAZLUL HOQUE
R/O VILL- KALAPAKANI PART-II, BAILORCHAR
P.O. PATAMARI, P.S. DHUBRI,
IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783324.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:ANAR HUSSAIN (INFORMANT)
S/O LT. ABDUL GONI
R/O VILL- KALAPAKANI PART-II
BAILORCHAR
P.O. PATAMARI
P.S. DHUBRI
IN THE DISTRICT OF DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN-783324
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, MR G U AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MS. M K BROWN, (AMICUS CURIAE, R2)
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 25.07.2025
1) Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.
K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Assam and Ms. M.
K. Brown, learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No.2.
2) While making submissions for the petitioner, Mr. Islam has pointed out
that the petitioner has been languishing behind the bars for last more than
years. He however is pressing this bail application mainly on the plea that at the
time of his arrest though the petitioner was furnished with notice under Section
50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, it does not contain any
grounds of arrest and, therefore, that has been a violation of the mandate of
the provision of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 650
of the Cr.PC.
3) The learned Amicus Curie while replying to the said submissions as
referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Ram Kishor Arora
Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 599 and has
submitted that the Apex Court has clarified in the aforesaid Judgment that the
observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union
of India, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576 would be prospectively applicable
from the date of the Judgment of the said Case ( Pankaj Bansal). She has
referred to the Judgment of the Ram Kishor Arora and has submitted that it is
also observed in the said Judgment that very use of the word (henceforth) in
the Case of Pankaj Bansal implied that the requirement of furnishing the
grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as he was arrested
was not mandatory till the date of the said Judgment.
Page No.# 3/3
4) Replying to the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
referred to the Judgment of the Apex Court in the Case of Kanishk Sinha Vs.
State of West Bengal and Another reported in (2025) SCC online SC
443, wherein the Apex Court has clarified that all the judicial pronouncement
are retrospective in effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
5) On this, a query was posed by this Court to the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that even if the submissions of the learned Amicus Curiae is
agreed to by this Court, is there anything on record to show that the grounds of
arrest were in fact communicated to the petitioner at the time of his arrest
through other mode, if not in writing.
6) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has prayed for some time to
answer to the query posed by this Court.
7) The time is allowed.
8) List his matter again on 07.08.2025.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant