Page No.# 1/10 GAHC020003962025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : Bail Appln./7/2025 SMTI. MEDIE MOR WIFE OF IMTIPONGSHI JAMIR, R/O H.NO. 4 SEITHEKEMA C, CHUMUKEDIMA, - 797103, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA Advocate for the Petitioner : SENTIYANGER, YUKHAKOKLA,MAONGKALA,NOCKLEI M KONYAK,KONLI BUCHEM,V ANNE THERIE,NISUKA CHISHI Advocate for the Respondent : P.P, NAGALAND, Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER This is an application under Section 480 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for release of the petitioner on bail in connection with State Crime Police Station Case No. 0003/2024 registered under Section 111 (3) (4) & (6) and 318 (2) (3) & (4). 2. The Suo-moto FIR dated 24.10.2024 reveals that a company named RGA had duped many customers and that the said company introduced investment plan promising huge returns specifically to uplift the under privileged and that they are affiliated with the Govt. of India. It is further stated that the said RGA which offered profits on investment had setup office at various place in the State of Nagaland. It is thereafter stated that a number of complaints have been received from all over the State alleging that victims share web-links to one another where everyone gets registered in the RGA platform using their Mobile phones. It is also stated that the said app had stopped working from 24.10.2024 and that all the money that was invested by the victims were siphoned off resulting in huge monetary loss of the victims. On receipt of the FIR, the case was registered under the aforesaid Sections. Page No.# 3/10 3. During the investigation, it was found that the petitioner also invested his money and had invited many other people into the said investment. The police as such served summons under Section 179 of the BNSS, to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the accused person after receiving the summon appeared before the police officer and gave his statement and that thereafter, he was again summoned to which the accused person again went and gave his statement. He states that the accused has appeared 3 times before the Investigating Officer (I.O). The learned counsel states that the petitioner cannot be arrayed as an accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and that he is in fact a victim to the entire incident. He stated that he too like others having the urge to earn money found the app while browsing Youtube in his Mobile phone. He on finding the app saw that investing the way it was directed in the app would give him profits and as such, he registered himself with the desire to earn some money. In the process, he was directed by the app to get more participants which he accordingly did and got into the offence in question. He stated that there were many other persons who had invested in the said investment scheme offered by the RGA and had setup office for luring other investors in the same. However, he was not involved in the said business. Page No.# 4/10 5. The counsel further stated that apart from his non-involvement in the incident in question, the grounds of arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 47 of the BNSS, 2023 were not served upon him. By showing the format for information of grounds of arrest as he has annexed as Annexure – 6 in his petition, he demonstrated that the same were not grounds of arrest but are reasons for arrest as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He as such states that non-serving of grounds of arrest is itself a ground for release of a person on bail. As such, the counsel prays that the accuse person should be released on bail under the aforesaid circumstances. 6. Ms. S. Mere, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Nagaland by placing the Case Diary in the instant case has argued before this Court that the accused person is involved in the offence in question and he was the first one to start investing in the scheme offered by the RGA and that he lured others into investing into the same. She also states that he had given different statements every time he goes before the I.O on being called for. She placed the statements of the accused person recorded on 13.11.2024 in which he stated that he was the one who created RGA Elite Group and thereafter, placed the second statement before the I.O wherein, he had stated that he recruited 15 other participants and added them to Page No.# 5/10 the Whatsapp Group which he had created and that he further expanded his number of participants and by that he had procured more profits out the said investment. She also placed his statement where he stated that he had sold Mobile phone with which he downloaded the concerned app. She had also submitted that although the accused person said that he sold his Mobile phone and his sim card, his Mobile phone and his sim card were seized by the I.O on 13.05.2025. She thereafter placed the third statement given before the police on 11.08.2025 wherein, he had stated that he had formatted both his phones used for downloading the app concerned and that he had not sold his phone as he had stated in his previous statements. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on two (2) judgments delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, i.e., P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198 by which the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that in cases of money laundering and other such economic offences, pre-arrest bail may not be granted. She also relied upon the judgment passed in Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 4380 by which the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach while considering bail. 7. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Page No.# 6/10 8. The FIR lodged in the instant case reveals the offence against the company namely RGA company who is stated to have cheated many customers. It revealed that the said company although introduces investment plans with the so-called purpose to uplift the under privileged, the main purpose of the said company was to cheat and steal money from the innocent customers. The said FIR was against the action of the RGA company. The FIR revealed that the victims share the web-link of the said company to one another and that they all register themselves in the RGA platform through their Mobile phones and that it was learned later that the RGA stopped working and the invested money was siphoned off. The accused person was not arrayed as an accused in the said FIR. The FIR was solely against the illegal actions of the aforesaid company. However, during the investigation, it was found that the accused person use to share the links with others and in finding the same, the I.O summoned the accused person under 179 of the BNSS. 9. Although it is seen in the statement given by the accused person before the I.O that he created the RGA Elite Group, however, it is not clear as to whether he was aware that the said RGA Group i.e., the parent group had the intention to actually dupe the customers. Further, although he stated that he invited other participants to the said group to earn more money but then it is again not clear as to Page No.# 7/10 whether he did it to cheat those person or to make all, earn some money and in the process to earn even more money. The further statement of the accused person that he told the I.O that he had sold his phone but he had not sold the same will not make him liable for an offence inasmuch as he being a young boy of 21 years of age must have got scared with the allegations and offence as stated. 10. The further argument of the learned counsel appearing for the accused persons that grounds of arrest are not supplied to the petitioner, the same has basis in the facts and circumstances of the case. Although format for information is annexed with the petition, the contents of the same do not show that there were grounds of arrest and rather it shows they were reasons of arrest. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254 had observed in paragraph No. 48 of the same that the reasons of arrest and grounds of arrest are two (2) different phrases. The stipulations such as 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 such person from making any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts Page No.# 8/10 of the case etc., are reasons of arrest whereas, grounds of arrest should contain all such details in the hands of the I.O which necessitated the arrest of the accused. It further observed that 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. As such, it is observed that grounds of arrest' would invariably be personal to the Accused and cannot be equated with the 'reasons of arrest' which are general in nature. 12. It is noticed in the aforesaid format that the petitioner was informed only the case number in which he was arrested and the offence which is registered against him. The further stipulations made in the said format i.e., to prevent the accused person from committing any further crime, to prevent him from causing evidence to disappear, to prevent him from disclosing facts to the co-accused and for collection of evidence to arrest the co-accused, are all reasons of arrest as is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. Although in the said format, the requirement is provided for as to what grounds of arrest should contain but the same was not understood by the police and what was given to the accused were only reasons of arrest. Further, under Section 48 of the BNSS, it is provided that even the family members of the accused person should be Page No.# 9/10 informed of the grounds of arrest. 13. In the instant case, it is seen that the said format which actually contains reasons of arrest, a copy of thereof is given to the mother of the accused and as such, the provision under Section 48 of the BNSS is not followed. Non-serving of grounds of arrest which is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, makes the arrest unconstitutional and the violation thereof vitiates the arrest itself. The continued custody of such a person is also vitiated thereby. 14. In the present case, the arrest is as such vitiated and the accused is liable to be released forthwith. This Court therefore both on the findings on merit of the case as well as on non-serving of grounds of arrest is constrained to release the accused person on bail. As such, the accused namely, Mr. Lanuranger Jamir be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two (2) local surety one being a Government Servant working in the State of Nagaland to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (1) the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the I.O as and when called. (2) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses whoever is connected with the case. Page No.# 10/10 (3) He being a student would have to go to other places and as such, he will not leave without the permission of the Investigating Officer of the said case as well as the Trial Court of the concerned place as and when required. 15. Bail Application is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant