Date : 12-12-2025 Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel assisted by Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the CBI/respondents.

Page No.# 2/23

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking bail in connection with FIR No. RC 2212024E0016 corresponding to Dibrugarh P.S Case No. 354/2024. the case was re-registered in CBI on 14.10.2024 under the same sections in pursuance of a notification issued on 11.10.2024 read with notification dated 9.10.2024. Though initially the petitioner was released on default bail by this Court, he is stated to have surrendered before the Trial Court on 03.10.2025 pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. The case was subsequently investigated by the CBI and a final form has been submitted, which indicates that the investigation against the petitioner is complete, however, leave to continue investigation had been sought for. It has also been submitted that the trial has not commenced yet. The charges proposed by the Final Form are under Sections 120B corresponding to Section 61 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 409 IPC read with Section 420 of IPC, and read with Section 25 r/w Section 21(1) , 21(2) and 21 (3) r/w Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 and substantive offences thereof.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner was granted statutory bail by this Court vis-à-vis purported statutory period of 60 days. The CBI took the matter up to the Hon'ble Apex Court where it became clear that the applicable statutory period was actually 90 days and accordingly, the matter was remanded back, directing the petitioner herein to surrender. A bail petition was preferred before the learned Trial Court taking, amongst others, the ground that non-compliance of provisions of Section 47 and 48 BNSS had rendered the arrest and the remand thereafter to be unsustainable in law. The said petition was however rejected and the petitioner is now before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention to the copies of the said notices under 47 and 48 Page No.# 3/23 BNSS annexed with the bail petition, submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court had not gone into that aspect of the matter and contends that there is violation of the law with regard to such notices and in terms of the governing law, the petitioner should be granted bail.

4. The scanned copy of the CD and other documents called for have been received. The CBI had also filed their objection which is found on record.

5. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the notices purported to have been issued under provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS 2023 reflect that they consist of information that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the referred case, that the case is non bailable to Police and that he has been forwarded to judicial custody. The notices under section 48 of BNSS also do not specify the requirement of a notice as required in law, since it only refers to a particular case number, penal section of law and the date, time and place of arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had come to a finding that notice in the language mentioned in the notices do not suffice the requirement of informing the arrested person the grounds of arrest. He has submitted that when the grounds of arrest are not specified, the rights of an arrested person under Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India stand violated and therefore, the very arrest and detention in custody become unlawful. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the issue regarding the violation of provision of Article-22(1) were neither placed nor considered in the previous round of litigation and on the earlier occasion the petitioner had been erroneously granted a default bail, which later came to be interfered with.

6. Formulating his argument that the petitioner is entitled to a default bail in the present case even as of today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has Page No.# 4/23 submitted that the charge-sheet allegedly submitted by the Investigating Authorities reflects two facts; that the Investigating Authorities sought to invoke provision of section-193(9) of the BNSS to continue further investigation and secondly that only the investigation in respect of the accused No.1 had been completed and supplementary report under section 193(9) of BNSS would be submitted subsequently for which the investigation has been kept on. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent that the charge sheet submitted was only a part charge sheet. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail as the complete charge sheet has not been filed even as of date.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner opened his arguments on the other aspect of the case regarding violation of the fundamental right of the petitioner under provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India and has submitted that a perusal of the notice available at page-121 and page-122 respectively of the petition do not disclose the basic facts on which the petitioner has been arrested so as to provide him the opportunity to defend himself against the custodial remand and to seek bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to the arrest memo available in the case records, both procured from the Learned Trial Court and as also produced by the learned counsel for the respondents, to submit that Clause-10 of the arrest memo would show that the same is captioned as reasons/ground of arrest and certain pre-formatted clauses have been incorporated in the same and where the Investigating Authorities has simply marked as 'Yes'. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter referred to the "Forwarding Note" of the arrested person, to submit that the same is addressed to the Hon'ble Court of District & Sessions Judge Dibrugarh and there are no copies marked to the petitioner. Even Page No.# 5/23 otherwise, the grounds of arrest reflected in the "Forwarding Note" do not suffice the requirement as per law laid down by the Apex Court while it interpreted the provision of Article-22(1) of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter referred to the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dibrugarh in G.R Case no. 997/2024 by which the first bail petition filed by the petitioner herein had been rejected. The learned counsel has referred to the paragraph-3 of the order to state that the petitioner had invoked the ground of non-communication of the ground of arrest to the accused and his family members and then he referred to paragraph-7 of the order by which, without discussing the merits of such a submission, the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected. Turning then to the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, CBI of Assam, Addl. Court No. 2, Chandmari, Guwahati-3, the learned counsel has submitted that a perusal of paragraph-40 of the order would show that the learned Special Judge had formed an opinion once the Trial Court i.e the learned Sessions Judge Dibrugarh, had rejected the bail petition of the petitioner considering the plea of violation of the provision of section-47 and 48 of the BNSS on merit, the subsequent petition raising the same ground would not be maintainable and that the learned Special Judge could not reverse the order passed by the learned Special Judge acting like an appellate Court.

9. Referring to the judgment of Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy -Versus- Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 and the Nimmagadda Prasad -Versus- Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application of the petitioner as it formed the opinion that the accused had committed an economic offence with the conspiracy with other persons and that further Page No.# 6/23 investigation of the instant case is still going on. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be apparent from records that the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Dibrugarh did not at all consider the ground of the petitioner that he was denied the communication of the ground of arrest and therefore, the finding of the learned Special Court that the bail petition had been rejected considering the plea taken by the accused person under section 47 & 48 of the BNSS on merit is not correct conclusion. He has referred to the case of Prabir Purkayastha -versus- State of NCT Delhi, reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 and has submitted that the Apex Court had held at paragraph-48 as follows;

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the notices served upon the petitioner u/s 47 and notice served on his wife u/s 48 of the BNSS, 2023 do not comply with the requirement of law, the very arrest of the petitioner is vitiated and the petitioner is entitled for the privilege of bail at this stage.

10. Vehemently opposing the prayer for bail, Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel for the CBI has submitted that the present case is one relating to an economic offence.

11. By referring to the judgment passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Hilal Ahmad Mir -Versus- Anti-Corruption Bureau & Others disposed on 19.10.2025, she has drawn attention of the Court to the following paragraph of the judgment:

12. The learned counsel has also referred to the case of P. Chidambaram

-versus- Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2019 (9) SCC 24 wherein she has referred to the following paragraphs;

Page No.# 9/23

78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:-

79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-

13. The learned Standing counsel for the CBI has referred to the judgment of Tarun Kumar -versus- Assistant Directorate of Enforcement Neutral citation INSC 1006 wherein she has relied upon the paragraph-22 which reads as follows;

14. The learned Standing counsel has thereafter referred to the order of this Court passed in B.A No. 1514/2025 where at paragraph-28 the following was observed;

instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vs.- CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that -- "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

33. Considering such materials in the case diary placed before the Court, it is seen that the petitioner, being a Banker, cannot be said to be in the same footing as that of the other accused Sandeep Gupta, being a Medicine Representative, who was Page No.# 14/23 released on bail by order dated 06.05.2025, passed in BA No.1313/2025 in the same CBI Case involving the petitioner. As such the claim of the petitioner for his bail in parity cannot be considered.

34. After hearing the parties and considering the entire aspects of the matter and since the investigation against him in said CBI Case is at initial stage, therefore, though he is in detention since 13.04.2025, the bail of the petitioner, Pushpajit Purkayastha, son of Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Purkayastha, cannot be considered in said CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi, at this stage, and accordingly, stands rejected. "

19. To adequately answer the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the CBI that the arrest memo and the notice u/s 47 of the BNSS together reveals the grounds of arrest, this Court would make a reference to the notice under Section 47 of the BNSS and the arrest memo. The notice under section 47 of BNSS is devoid of any particulars save and except reference to the Police case number, the provisions of law involved and the description of the arrested person. It does not indicate on what ground the person had been arrested. The arrest memo is equally insufficient when the issue of communicating the ground of arrest is taken into consideration. For ready reference, Clause-10 of the arrest memo is reproduced below;

The petitioner had filed another application on his production from remand on 07.09.2024. In this petition, the grounds taken up were that the petitioner had not been communicated the grounds of arrest. The non-compliance of section-41(a) was also pleaded.

In neither of the two petitions does this Court find any submission regarding the involvement or otherwise of the petitioner in the allegation sought to be leveled against him. It appears that to this Court that no ground praying for bail on merit of the matter had been placed on record since neither of the notices, u/s 47 or under Section 48 of the BNSS, as referred to herein before, Page No.# 19/23 divulged any ground of arrest which the petitioner could have either denied or disputed. In the absence of the grounds of arrest being supplied to him in the manner mandated by law, the petitioner appears to have suffered in defending himself during his production for remand. Though he had engaged a lawyer and a bail application was filed, the same were done without being served the grounds of arrest.

22. With regard to the case law referred to by the counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that reliance was placed by the learned Standing counsel for the CBI mainly on the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) where the petitioner therein was seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Court. No doubt the aforesaid case related to economic offences, however allegations of money laundering were also involved. The Supreme Court had observed that the grant of an anticipatory bail during the investigation in that case would not be appropriate.

In the case of Tarun Kumar (supra), the case involved offences under the provisions of both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act also. Such are not the allegations involved in the present case. Such provisions have not been invoked against the present petitioner as on the date when this application is being considered.

Pushpajit Purkayastha (supra) was a case where the investigation in regard to the involvement of the petitioner was still going on and in such circumstances, the Court had denied the privilege of bail. In the present case at hand, the Final Form declares that the investigation against the petitioner is complete.

23. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the Page No.# 20/23 absence of the ground of arrest being provided to the petitioner, the same has caused prejudice in the petitioner's attempt to effectively apply for bail during his production and also in resisting the prayer for remand. In the present case, the notice, under Section 47 of the BNSS, served on the petitioner merely states that he has been arrested in Dibrugarh P.S Case No. 354/2024 without disclosing the basic facts necessitating such arrest. This Court, therefore, finds that the petitioner was not informed of the grounds of his arrest, as required by law. The notice issued under Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023, is devoid of any such details, resulting in a clear violation of constitutional and statutory mandate rendering the arrest illegal and entitling the petitioner to bail.

24. In the case of Tarun Kumar (supra), the Apex Court had held that it is trite that the court while considering an application seeking bail, is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, the court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State etc. Though, the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion for granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing with the economic offences.

25. While resisting the present bail petition, nothing was submitted by the respondent CBI with regard to the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of not being able to Page No.# 21/23 secure the presence of the accused at the trial or reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with. A cursory view of the charge-sheet alleges that the petitioner had entered into a conspiracy with others and he did not deposit the funds collected from customers with any Regulated Deposit Scheme. The respondents have not alleged in their objections that the petitioner indulged in any nefarious activity to influence the process of collection of evidence or that he had in any manner misused his freedom when he remained out of custody during the period when he was on a misinterpreted default bail. On cancellation of such bail, the petitioner had also surrendered.

26. In the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma , neutral citation 2025 INSC 141, the Apex Court has observed as follows: -

27. Since this court has come to a conclusion that the arrest and remand of the petitioner were in violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, discussion on the other arguments made are not considered necessary while dealing with this bail petition.

28. This Court, conscious of the requirement of imposing strict conditions in granting bail to accused in economic offence cases, in view of the above, it is directed that the petitioner, namely, Ranjit Kakoty, shall be allowed to go on bail of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only with two sureties of like amount both Page No.# 22/23 of whom should be resident of the State of Assam having immovable property in their independent name, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam with the following conditions:

On violation of any of the conditions aforesaid being brought to the notice, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand liable to be revoked/cancelled.

This bail application stands disposed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant