Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010212882025 2025:GAU-AS:13593 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3071/2025 SUJOY BARUAH S/O LATE RAMENDRAKR. BARUAH RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 4D, PRAG ENCLAVE, BASISTHAPUR BYE LANE 4, GUWAHATI- 781028 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN, P BHOWMICK,MS. N CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Linked Case : Bail Appln./3072/2025 CHINMOY JYOTI SHARMA S/O RABENDRA SARMA RESIDENT OF METUAKUCHI SUKHALATA PATH BARPETA TOWN DISTRICT BARPETA PIN 781301 VERSUS Page No.# 2/8 THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Linked Case : Bail Appln./3073/2025 SANJIT RAJ CHOUDHURY S/O LATE BINOY BHUSHAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 14 AMBIKAGIRI NAGAR RG BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI 781024 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A K BHUYAN Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 08.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan learned counsel for the petitioners. Petitioner in BA No. 3071/2025 is Sujoy Baruah, petitioner in BA No. 3072/2025 is Chinmoy Jyoti Sharma and the petitioner in BA No. 3073/2025 is Sanjit Raj Choudhury. All these bail applications are disposed of by this common order as the bail applications are relating to the same Police Case being Geetanagar PS case No. 70/2025. 2. The FIR unfolds that a young boy (minor) named Sri Abhijit Das, aged around 15 years informed the O/C of Geetanagar PS on 05.09.2025 at about 12.35 p.m. that some unknown persons belonging to “Pragati Edutech”, had through some of his friends called him to their office at R.G. Baruah Road on 01.09.2025. When the young lad, Abhijit Das, along with his friends visited the office, he learnt that certain unknown persons had created fraudulent fake Aadhar card No. 5910 4846 2000 in the name of Monjit Mesh, with the help of his (Abhijit’s) photograph so that Abhijit could sit for an examination in place of Monjit Mesh. 3. On receipt of information, an inquiry was conducted and after preliminary examination of Sri Abhijit Das, the SI Sri Akhil Gogoi along with SI (P) Dipjyoti Choudhury and other police personnel proceeded to Pragati Edutech at Budhin Bhawan, RGB Road on being led by Sri Abhijit Das. The police found that the Place of Occurrence (PO for short) is a coaching institute run under “Corporate Social Responsibility Project of Oil India Limited”. The petitioners were found Page No.# 4/8 inside the PO and several incriminating documents and materials including computer device etc. were found. 4. Out of the materials, the most prominent items were 915 Aadhar Cards found in the PO along with 14 (fourteen) Pan Cards with different Pan numbers. All these Articles were seized and the petitioners were apprehended. It was unearthed that the petitioners were running an illegal business to embezzle government funds allocated by different Government departments under National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) and Tourism & Hospitality Skill Council (THSC) for student, trainees in the guise of the Institute Pragati Edutech. 5. Several fake Aadhar Cards, Pan Cards were generated using the details of different individuals as in the case of Abhijit Das and these students were made to sit as proxies in examinations conducted by THSC and they were provided all answers, data etc. to clear the examination with malafide to misappropriate the allocated Government funds for wrongful financial gain. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner Sujoy Baruah is ailing seriously and as he is in the jail, he is suffering immensely. 7. Annexure-D series are the documents relating to the health condition of the petitioner Sujoy Baruah which reveals that on examination and CT scan of the petitioner, his abdomen reveals diffused smooth Mucosal thickening of urine bladder-cystitis but no calculus is seen in bilateral kidneys and the other examination report reveals bilateral inflammatory sacroiliitis. Additional affidavits have been filed in all the petitions and through the additional affidavit, it is contended that the Police officer is required to be satisfied that such arrest is necessary. He has to record reasons in writing of his reasons to believe on the Page No.# 5/8 basis which accused was arrested as:- (a) Reasons to believe on the basis of the material collected during investigation, (b) Reasons that if the person concern is not arrested then he may commit further such offence, (c) Reasons to be recorded in writing that for proper investigation of offence such arrest in necessary, (d) Reasons on record is required to be written before arresting such person that such person if not arrested can cause disappearance or tamper the evidence, (e) That before arresting such person reasons to believe in writing is to be recorded as to prevent such person from making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and (f) Reason to believe before arresting such person if not arrested, his presence in the court if at all charge-sheeted cannot be procured. It is further contended that the case diary will reveal that no such required reasons were recorded while arresting the petitioners. 8. It is further submitted that in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that all police officers be provided with the checklist containing specifications under Sections- 41(1)(b)(II) Cr.P.C.. It is also mandated that the police officer shall also forward the checklist duly filed and furnished along with reasons and materials necessitating the allegations of the accused while producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention. Page No.# 6/8 9. It is submitted that the arrest memo was clearly not duly filled up as mandated. Thus, the very purpose of Section-41 of the Cr.P.C. vis.a.vis., Section- 35 of the BNSS, 2023 on being subverted by any police officer becomes a redundant provision. 10. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. S. Lahkar has raised serious objection stating that there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioners. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are also not entitled to bail for the fact that there are incriminating materials that the petitioners have siphoned of funds in the garb of providing social service and skill training to youths. After manufacturing fake Aadhar Cards and Pan Cards and after running a fake Institution, the petitioners were successful in siphoning of huge amount of funds amounting to Rs. 4 crs. to 5 crs. in a most illegal and deplorable manner. They themselves have committed an offence and have exercised pressure on minor students to be proxy examinees for their own wrongful gain which is a deplorable act. 11. The petitioners are not entitled to bail, considering the gravity of the offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. S. Lahkar has raised serious objection and has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Karnataka vs. Sri Darshan Etc. reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702 wherein it has been held that:- “In the present case, the arrest memos and remand records clearly reflect that the respondents were aware of the reasons for their arrest. They were legally represented from the outset and applied for ball shortly after arrest, evidencing an immediate and informed understanding of the accusations. No material has been placed on record to establish that any prejudice was caused due to the alleged procedural lapse. In the absence of demonstrable prejudice, such as irregularity is, at best, a curable defect and cannot, by itself, warrant release on bail. As reiterated above, the High Court treated it as a determinative factor Page No.# 7/8 while overlooking the gravity of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the existence of a prima facie case. Its reliance on Pankaj Bansal and Prabir Purkayastha is misplaced, as those decisions turned on materially different facts and statutory contexts. The approach adopted here is inconsistent with the settled principle that procedural lapses in furnishing grounds of arrest, absent prejudice, do not ipso facto render custody illegal or entitle the accused to bail.” 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 wherein it has been held that:- “The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offence. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail” 13. I find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, no notice under Section -41 have been issued to the petitioners prior to their arrest. The petitioners are booked under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(3), 318(4), 319(2), 335(B), 336(3) of the BNS, 2023. 14. The petitioners have been behind bars for 33 days. Although there are incriminating materials in the case diary against the petitioners and the gravity of the offence is humongous, yet investigation has progressed substantially. 15. I have also considered the submissions that the petitioners are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioners are willing to abide by any stringent bail conditions if any imposed upon them. The petitioners being local residents are not flight risks. I have also considered the health condition of the petitioner namely, Sujoy Baruah. 16. It appears that further custodial detention of the petitioners may not be required for further progress of investigation. Many of the incriminating materials and documents required for the purpose of investigation have already Page No.# 8/8 been seized at the initial stage of the investigation. 17. Considering all aspects, it appears that the bail may be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are thereby enlarged on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) each with two local sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Kamrup (M), under the conditions that:- (i) The petitioners shall co-operate with the remaining part of the investigation and appear before the I.O. on every fortnight till completion of investigation. (ii) The petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they are alleged, (iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence of try to influence witnesses (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till completion of trial. 18. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the Trial Court is at liberty to immediately cancel the bail granted to the petitioners. 19. Send back the case diary. 20. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant