Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010257232024 2025:GAU-AS:271 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3777/2024 PRANAB KUMAR GHOSH S/O LATE PRADYUT KUMAR GHOSH R/O R.G. BARUA ROAD, MANIK NAGAR, HOUSE NO. 5, BY LANE NO. 4, GUWAHATI-781005, DIST. KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), REP BY THE SC, CBI, GUWAHATI. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAUDHURY, MR. D BORA,MR. N MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 Heard Mr. B. K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI for the respondent. Page No.# 2/11 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with RC- 0172021A0003, under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 420/409/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. 3. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and as per the F.I.R., the crime period is 2011-2013 and thus, the entire documentary evidences are already been collected the Investigating Agency. Further it is submitted that the accused persons made several efforts and correspondence for one time settlement of the outstanding dues and on several occasion, proposal for settlement was also made before the Bank Authority, but till date, the proposal was not accepted by the informant/Bank Authority. To substantiate the said plea, he also annexed some of the corresponding letters along with the petition. However, he submitted that the petitioner is still ready to pay outstanding dues. 5 Mr. Mahajan further submitted that the present accused/ petitioner is an aged person of around 70 years of age and he is behind the bar for last 53 days. But, till date, the petitioner is not interrogated by the investigating agency inside the jail premises. More so, he submitted that from the Forwarding Report also, it reveals that the I.O. never prayed for any police remand for the present petitioner, though he is languishing in jail hajot for last 53 days. Further he Page No.# 3/11 submitted that prior to his arrest, the petitioner received notice from the Investigating Agency on several occasion and complying the notice, he accordingly appeared before the I.O. and co-operated in the investigating of the case and also produced the relevant documents before the Investigating Authority. However, complying to last notice/ summon, while the petitioner also appeared before the Investigating Agency, he got arrested in connection with this case on 16.11.2024 and since then, he was remanded for judicial custody without any prayer for police remand. More so, he submitted that though the crime period was for 2011-2013, the F.I.R. was received by the CBI only in the year 2020 and his house search was also made on 22.06.2021. But thereafter there was no attempt of any house search by the I.O., though he was called for on several occasions by the I.O. to co-operate in the investigation. The copy of the notices which were received by the present accused/petitioner is also annexed along with the petition to substantiate the plea that prior to his arrest, he was called on several occasion by the I.O. for his interrogation and also directed to produce some relevant documents before the Investigating Authority. 6. Mr. Mahajan further submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence which has already been collected by the I.O. and hence, the further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may not be necessary for the interest of the investigation. More so, there is no flight risk of the present accused/petitioner and he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed on him and also ready to produce the genuine bailor if he is granted with the privilege of bail. Page No.# 4/11 7. He further submitted that the grounds of arrest was also not communicated to the present accused/petitioner nor the particulars of the offence was furnished to the petitioner to know as to on what grounds the accused/petitioner was arrested which is also in violation of Section 47(1) of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C. rendering the arrest and subsequent remand of the accused/petitioner invalid. He further submitted that the accused has a fundamental and statutory right to be informed about the ground of arrest in writing and the copy of such written ground of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without any exception. Non-supply of written grounds of arrest to the arrested accused person would vitiate the arrest even if the case has been charge-sheeted. 8. In this context, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme court passed in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254] wherein, in paragraph 19 of the judgment, it has been held as under: “19. Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest. The purpose of informing to the arrested person the grounds of arrest is salutary and sacrosanct inasmuch as, this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his Advocate; oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail. Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” 9. He further submitted that the accused was arrested on the ground that he was not co-operating the I.O., though it is a fact that he appeared before the Page No.# 5/11 I.O. on many occasion complying to the notice/summon issued to him by the Investigating Agency. In that context also, he relied on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Santosh Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2017) 9 SCC 714] and emphasized on paragraph No. 6 of the judgment, which reads as under: “6. It appears, the IO was of the view that the custody of the appellant is required for recording his confessional statement in terms of what the co-accused had already stated in the Statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The IO was of the opinion that the appellant was not cooperating because he kept reiterating that he had not purchased the food-grains. The purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of confession. The right against self- incrimination is provided for in Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It is a well settled position in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka1, that Article 20(3) enjoys an “exalted status”. This provision is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities. Therefore, merely because the appellant did not confess, it cannot be said that the appellant was not cooperating with the investigation. However, in case, there is no cooperation on the part of the appellant for the completion of the investigation, it will certainly be open to the respondent to seek for cancellation of bail.” 10. In this regard, he also relied on another decision of Hon’ble Apex court passed in the case of Bijender Vs. State of Haryana [SLP (Crl.) No(s). 1079/2024]. 11. Accordingly, Mr. Mahajan submitted that considering the length of detention viz-a-viz considering the ground of non-furnishing of ground of arrest, which is mandatorily required, the petitioner may be released on bail. Further, the petitioner being a permanent resident of his addressed locality, there is no chance of absconding and he is ready and willing to extend his co-operation in further investigation of this case. Page No.# 6/11 12. Mr. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI submitted in this regard that this is a case wherein huge amount of money is involved and the offence is of very grave in nature which is of economic offence and hence, it should be treated as an offence class apart. More so, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner. The case is still under investigation and further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner will be required for the interest of the investigation. He further submitted that the grounds of arrest were already intimated to the present petitioner and in Arrest Memo, the reasons of arrest is specifically described in brief and the signature of the accused/petitioner was also obtained in the Arrest Memo. Thus, it cannot be said that the grounds and the reasons of arrest is not communicated to the present accused/petitioner. More so, from the Forwarding Report, which is also annexed along with the petition, it is seen that the grounds of arrest were already mentioned therein. However, it is a fact that a separate heading is not there in the Forwarding Report as well as in the Arrest Memo, though the reasons of arrest are being mentioned in the Arrest Memo. Further he submitted that from the Case Diary also, it is seen that the grounds and the reasons of arrest were already communicated to the arrested accused/petitioner and thus, it cannot be held that the grounds of arrest was not known to the present petitioner, though separate heading was admittedly not found in the Arrest Memo as well as in the Forwarding Report. 13. In that context, Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically held that the grounds of arrest and the reasons of arrest are Page No.# 7/11 different and grounds of arrest must be in writing and is to convey to the arrested accused person or the basic facts on which he was being arrested in the said case. He accordingly emphasized on paragraph No. 48 of the said judgment, which reads as under: “48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature.” 14. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the case record and the Case Diary as well as the annexures filed along with the petition. 15. From the record as well as from the Case Diary, it is seen that admittedly the accused/petitioner is behind the bar for last 53 days and thus, the Investigating Agency got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. However, it is also a fact that after his arrest, the I.O. did not sought for any police remand of the accused/petitioner and he was directly sent for judicial custody after his arrest. Page No.# 8/11 It is also an admitted fact that prior to his arrest, the accused/ petitioner was provided with several notices/summons and he accordingly appeared before the I.O. and some relevant documents were also seized from the possession of the accused/petitioner during his interrogation. From the Case Diary, it is also seen that there is sufficient progress in the investigation and all the relevant documents are already been seized in connection with this case. However, from the Forwarding Report, it is seen that the accused got arrested in connection with this case as he was not co-operating the Investigating Agency in spite of several notices/summons issued to him. Though he appeared before the I.O., he was not co-operating in the investigation and accordingly he got arrested after issuance of the last notice on 14.11.2024. But it is seen that the accused/petitioner was never in the police remand and after his arrest, he was directly sent for judicial custody and there is no instances that he was interrogated while he was in judicial custody. It is also an admitted fact that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner. More so, it is also a fact that the allegations which are being brought against the present accused/petitioner are of economic offence wherein the allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of money is being brought against him. But, in the same time, it also cannot be denied that the I.O. got ample opportunity to interrogate the accused/petitioner keeping him in custody. 16. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regards to the communication of grounds of arrest, it is seen that there is no separate grounds of arrest provided to the present accused/petitioner, though the reasons of arrest in brief was communicated to the present petitioner at the time of his arrest and his signature was also accordingly obtained in the Arrest Page No.# 9/11 Memo. But, as per the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court for the proper compliance of the provision, the grounds of arrest has to be specific and it should be in writing by mentioning all particulars of the case and the grounds under which the accused was arrested and forward. Thus, it cannot be held that there is proper compliance in regards to Section 47(1) of the BNSS which is mandatorily required, though from the Forwarding Report and the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that the reasons of arrest was being communicated to the accused/ petitioner. It is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and the accused has the right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing. 17. Considering the detail discussion made above and also considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner, viz-a-viz the progress of investigation, and also considering the fact that most of the relevant documents are already been seized in connection with this case, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may not be necessary for the interest of investigation and therefore I find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 18. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only with 2 (two) sureties of like amount, provided that one surety has to be a government servant, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, the accused/petitioner, namely, Pranab Kumar Ghosh, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: Page No.# 10/11 (i) that the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, without prior permission. 19. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 20. The Case Diary be sent back. 21. It is observed that in number of cases, the I.O. do not provide the ground of arrest either in Forwarding Report or in Arrest Memo which gives a ground for bail for non-compliance/violation of Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 and Article 22(1) of Constitution of India, which has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2024) 8 SCC 254]. Due to non-compliance of such mandatory requirement of mentioning the ground of arrest, the Court even in some serious matter has to grant bail to the accused persons. This matter may be brought to the notice of Page No.# 11/11 the Director General of Police, Assam for doing needful. 22. Registry to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Police, Assam and also to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Assam. JUDGE Comparing Assistant