Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010197032025 2025:GAU-AS:12374 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2847/2025 JELAL UDDIN JODDAR ALIAS JALAL UDDIN JODDAR SON OF ABUL KASEM JODDAR VILL- PROHIRTARI P.S. FAKIRGANJ DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN-783330 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. SAYED SALIM AHMED,MS R DEKA,MR. I U CHOWDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 10.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Md. A. Hussain, the learned counselfor the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Page No.# 2/6 Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Jelal Uddin Joddar @ Jalal Uddin Joddar, who has been detained behind the bars since 03.08.2025 in connection with Chapar P.S. Case No. 119/2025 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/336(3) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 06.07.2025, one Nirmal Das had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Dhubri Police Station, inter alia, alleging that he has made payment of Rs. 1,67,93,385/- to the ED (Enforcement Directorate)on various dates beginning from 21.01.2025 to 09.05.2025, as per the messages received from the Enforcement Directorate and also in pursuant to the video call conversations to that effect. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that the informant has made all the payments through offline and online mode to Enforcement Directorate. He has not stated in the FIR as why he made the payments, however, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the informant was blackmailed by some miscreants, who had committed cyber fraud by taking the name of the ED (Enforcement Directorate). 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner is having an account in the Bandhan Bank, Chapar Branch, however, he had not deposited the amount of Rs. 28,04, 620/-(Rupees Twenty- Eight Lakhs, four Thousand and Six Hundred and Twenty only) neither he has withdrawn the said amount. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. The only accusation against him is that he introduced one Hafizur Rahman to the Page No.# 3/6 Branch Manager on his request to identify some customers, who may deposit the huge amount in his bank so that he may get promotion. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that any of theoffence alleged in the FIR has not been made out against the present petitioner. He also submits that the offences involved in this case do not entail punishment of imprisonment for more than 7(seven) years, therefore, there was a requirement of issuing notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS, 2023 to the petitioner before his arrest. However, in the instant case, no such notice was issued. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that nor any reasons for arriving at the satisfaction regarding existence of any ground mentioned in clause (a) to clause (e) of the Section 35 (1)(b) (ii) of the BNSS, 2023 has been stated in writing by the Investigating Officer. He also submits that the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of “Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar”reported in “(2014)8 SCC 273” as well as in the case of “Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.” reported in “(2022) 10SCC 51” has not been followed in this case and, therefore, the petitioner, is entitled to get bail on that count. 8. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Chhapar P.S. Case No. 119/2025 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage on the ground that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. 10. He also submits that the procedural requirement as mandated under Page No.# 4/6 Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023, has also been complied with in this case as reasons for arresting the petitioner has been stated in writing in the checklist submitted under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023, as well as the forwarding report. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary. 12. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that the accusation against the present petitioner is that he introduced Hafizur Rahman, i.e., the person in whose account the informant had deposited Rs. 28,05,175.00/- to the bank manager, namely, the co-accused Dipto Kumar Das. 13. It also appears that the offence alleged in this case entails punishment for not more than 7(seven) years and therefore, there was a requirement of issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. However, same was not done at the time of producing the petitioner before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilasipara after his arrest, has stated in the forwarding report that the petitioner has been arrested as he may likely to take revenge against the victim and complainant and replaces. Therefore, for their security the arrest of present petitioner is required. 14. However, there is nothing mentioned in the said forwarding report as to on the basis of which facts the Investigating Officer had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner would influence or threaten the witnesses or the complainant. 15. In the case of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar”(supra), it has been observed by the Apex Court that the law mandates that the police officer effecting an arrest in a case which entails punishment of imprisonment for not more than 7(seven) years, the facts and record the reasons in writing which led Page No.# 5/6 him to come to a conclusion regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in provisions contained in clause (a) to (e) of Section 35 (1)(b)(ii) of BNSS, 2023. 16. However, in the instant case, no such basis has been shown by the arresting authority in writing which led him to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner may threaten or influence the witnesses. 17. Therefore, there is a violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court issued in the case of “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar” (supra), by the arresting authority in this case, and on that count, the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this case. 18. For the reasons stated above, the above-mentioned petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount subject to satisfaction of the learned the Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Bilasipara with following conditions:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 19. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. 20. Send back the Case Diary. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant