Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010098462025 2025:GAU-AS:7450 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1481/2025 SHRAWAN KUMAR KASWAN AND ORS S/O- MOHANLAL KASWAN. R/O- BANIYA ROAD RAMSAR. WARD NO.7, P.S- NAPASAR. DIST.- BIKANER, RAJASTHAN 2: GANESH GAHLOT S/O- SAWANLAL GAHLOT. R/O- BIKANER WARD NO.23 P.S- GANGASHER. DIST.- BIKANER RAJASTHAN. 3: ANUJ UPADHYA S/O- RAJESH UPADHYA. R/O- GANGASHER WARD NO.48. P.S- BIKANER. DIST.- BIKANER RAJASTHAN. 4: SHARUK RAJEEN S/O- MD. FARUK RAYEEN. R/O- MOMASARBAD WARD NO.08. P.S- SRIDUNGAGARH. DIST.- BIKANER RAJASTHAN. 5: BIKASH NATH. S/O- POUM NATH. R/O- LAKHRWALLI. P.S- PELIBUNGA. DIST.- HANUMANGARH. Page No.# 2/8 6: PRADEEP SARMA S/O- LATE OM PRAKASH SARMA. R/O- 2ND URBAN ESTATE HOUSE NO.709. P.S- SECTOR 911. DIST.- HISSAR HARYANA. 7: JATIN UPADHYA S/O- GANESH UPADHYA. R/O- GANGASHER WARD NO.48. P.S- BIKANER. DIST.- BIKANER RAJESHTHAN 8: SAJJAN MUKHIYA S/O- AJODHI MUKHIYA. R/O- DOALAK. P.S- VEJA. DIST.- MADHUBAN BIHA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C K NATH, MR. AJAY SARMA,MR. S MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 06.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2. This instant application is filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for releasing the petitioners, namely, (1). Shrawan Kumar Kaswan, (2). Ganesh Gahlot, (3). Anuj Upadhya, (4). Sharuk Rajeen, (5). Bikash Page No.# 3/8 Nath, (6). Pradeep Sarma, (7). Jatin Upadhya and (8). Sajjan Mukhiya on bail, who were arrested on 30.04.2025 and they have been in jail for 38 days. 3. The case in hand as reflected from the FIR is that on a secret information, about some suspicious cyber related activities at Salmara Village in the house of Jiyarul Khan, a Police party conducted a search and during that search, 8(eight) numbers of suspected persons were found doing suspicious activities on laptops and huge number of cell phones. These 8(eight) numbers of suspected persons are the petitioners in the instant petition. 4. It is further stated in the FIR that on questioning, the petitioners could not provide any satisfactory answer as to what exact work they were performing. The Police as such arrested all the petitioners along with the person, in whose house the arrest were made and seized number of items, such as desktops and laptops, etc. 5. It is the Case of the petitioners that all the petitioners were working on behalf of a Trading Company and that they were employees of that Company. The Police on further enquiry found that the petitioners were actually involved in Hawala transaction and had opened several Whatsapp groups in order to facilitate and keep records of such transactions. The FIR also reveals that the petitioners were found to be operating online betting sites in their laptops and Police on reasonable ground that they were involved in online betting lodged the Ejaharas Tamulpur Police Station Case No.115/2025, registered under Sections 61(2)/316(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 14/15 of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970. Page No.# 4/8 6. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly raised 3(three) grounds for bail: 1. The petitioners are all employees of that Company and the main person, who is alleged to have been involved is not arrested. 2. Since, the offence alleged against the petitioners entails a punishment up-to 7(seven) years, Section 41A of Cr.P.C {35(3)} of BNSS, notices should have been furnished, which was not done so in the instant case. 3. The grounds of arrest to the relatives of the petitioners, which is mandated under Section 48 of the BNSS is also not given. 7. Mr. Mahajan also submits that the articles that were seized from the petitioners have no connection, whatsoever, with the offence in question on bare reading of the Assam Game and Betting Act, 1970, more specifically Section 2D of the said Act. He also submits that there is total violation of Section 49 of the BNSS, in as much as no written grounds of arrest was given to the relatives of the petitioners as can be seen from the notice that was annexed in the bail petition. 8. In the notice it is specifically written that the information was given to the father over telephone, which is not in consonance with the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by Page No.# 5/8 relying on the Case Diary had stated that the petitioners were arrested on the spot, while they were actually involved in Hawala transactions and online betting by collecting money thereof. He also stated that number of articles were seized from them, which substantiates the offence in question. As far as Section 41A notice is concerned, Mr. Parasar admits that the same were not given to the petitioners in the instant case. He however submits that as far as grounds of arrest are concerned, the same are given to the petitioners under Section 48 of the BNSS. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments made at the Bar by both the parties. 11. It is seen in the FIR that the petitioners were in fact caught red handed by the Police team doing suspicious activity and on interrogation it was found that the petitioners were in fact involved in online betting by collecting money through Hawala channels and were involved in various betting Acts by using fake Trading Company. 12. As far as the offence is concerned, there are enough materials in the FIR against the petitioners. It is a mandatory position of law that in offences where the maximum punishment of 7(seven) years is provided for, Section 41A notice has to be given and if it is not given, there will be total violation thereof and the petitioners would be entitled for bail. 13. In Case of “Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in 2023SCC Online SC 758”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that compliance of Section 41A Cr.P.C is a Page No.# 6/8 must and any non-compliance would entitle the accused for bail. In the instant case it is seen that this provision was not followed as no Section 41A notice was given to the petitioners. 14. Further, the grounds of arrest as mandated by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions are provided to the petitioners in the instant case, as annexed in Page-27of the bail petition. 15. However, to the relatives of the petitioners, the grounds of arrest were not served in writing as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar Case in “Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 269”. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision that requirement of communicating the grounds of arrest in writing is not only to the arrested person, but also to the friends, relatives or other persons related to the arrested person. 16. In the instant case, the notice of information of ground of arrest to the relatives annexed to the bail petition clearly shows that the grounds of arrest to the father of the petitioner was informed over telephone. The said fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 17. Serving of written grounds of arrest to the petitioner or to the relatives is for the purpose of informing the offence, i.e., registered against the petitioner, the details thereof as well as for informing the rights of the petitioner that accrues on his arrest. Oral information of the grounds of arrest was considered not proper by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “PrabinPurkayastha vs. State Page No.# 7/8 reported in (2024)8 SCC 254” All though the materials of the offence in question are writ large in the FIR against the petitioner, but on these 2(two) grounds, i.e., non-serving of Section 41A notice as well as non-serving of the grounds of arrest in writing to the relatives of the petitioners, this Court inclines to give bail to the petitioners, namely, 1). Shrawan Kumar Kaswan, (2). Ganesh Gahlot, (3). Anuj Upadhya, (4). Sharuk Rajeen, (5). Bikash Nath, (6). Pradeep Sarma, (7). Jatin Upadhya and (8). Sajjan Mukhiya on furnishing of a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of like amount, one being the Government servant of the State of Assam to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Mushalpur. 18. The bail order is subjected to the following conditions: (1) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the entire investigation of the case. (2) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (3) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Baksa, Mushalpur without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. (4) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threats, promise to any person acquainted with the case. (5) The petitioners shall deposit his passport/visa, if any, to the Investigating Agency. Page No.# 8/8 (6) The petitioners shall not hamper with the investigation or tamper with the evidence. 19. The bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant