Gauhati High Court
Bail Appln./1473/2026 of T. PAOTINLEN HAOKIP Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM on 27 August 2026
GAHC010111712026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1473/2026 T. PAOTINLEN HAOKIP S/O T. CHUNGNGAM HAOKIP R/O VILL. BONGMOL TAMPOK, P.S. MOLCHAM, DIST. CHANDEL, MANIPUR. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY
GAHC010111712026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1473/2026
T. PAOTINLEN HAOKIP
S/O T. CHUNGNGAM HAOKIP
R/O VILL. BONGMOL TAMPOK, P.S. MOLCHAM, DIST. CHANDEL, MANIPUR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A CHOUDHURY, U U KHAN,MISS. P M AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 28.08.2026 Heard Mr. M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioners, namely, T. Paotinlen Haokip, praying for grant of bail in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No.14/2026 arising out of Karimganj PS Case No. 395/2025 under Sections 21(C)/22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has placed this Court a message from the officer in charge of the Molcham Police Station, Chandel District, Manipur where it has been stated that the information regarding the arrest/judicial custody of the petitioner had been duly communicated telephonically on the 01.09.2025 to T. Paotinlen Haokip for both the families.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the fact that the arrest memo does not contain the signature of any of the witnesses to the arrest, supply of information regarding arrest and judicial custody to the father of the accused for both the families will not suffice the requirements of service of notice of under section 48 of the PNSC. Accordingly, submits that the arrest of the petitioner and the further detention has been rendered illegal and the petitioner requires to be released on bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the mere absence of the signature of witness on the arrest memo would not be enough to entitle the petitioner to the privilege of bail and further, it is on record that due to the ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur at the relevant point of time, the officer in- charge of the concerned police station could serve the intimation upon the father of the accused for both the families. Accordingly, he says that the provisions of law insofar as the service of notice under Section 48 of the BNSS is concerned, there is no violation and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to the privilege of bail at this stage.
6. I have gone through the records placed before me and the judgments referred to.
7. The absence of the witness to the arrest as depicted in the arrest memo under Section 36 of the BNSS coupled with the fact that the intimation regarding the arrest had been given to the father of the accused and there being no assertion that the grounds of arrest had been served upon the family friend or relative of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the arrest and the further detention of the petitioner pursuant to the said arrest has been rendered illegal.
8. However, this Court notices that the petitioner is facing trial and is a permanent resident of a locality beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court. In such circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled to the privilege of bail, since his arrest and detention has been rendered illegal. Therefore it is directed that the accused applicant be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Sribhumi subject to the following condition:
(i) That the accused applicant shall co-operate in the trial of Special (NDPS) Case No.14/2026 arising out of Karimganj PS Case No. 395/2025 under Sections 21(C)/22(C)/25/29 of NDPS Act;
(ii) That the accused applicant shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so required by the Trial Court;
(iii) That the accused applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present accused applicant;
(iv) That the accused applicant shall provide his contact details including photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;
(v) That the accused applicant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is granted by the Trial Court, the accused applicant shall submit his address and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; and
(vi) That the accused applicant shall not commit any offence while on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant