JUDGMENT : Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Standing Counsel, C.B.I. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS , 2023, whereby the petitioner, namely- Manoj Kumar Goyal has prayed for releasing him on bail after he was arrested in connection with C.B.I. Case No.RC 0732025E0003. 3. The petitioner Manoj Kumar Goyal is the proprietor of M/s. Belmonte having a specific GST registration. He approached the Bank of Baroda at Paltan Bazar asking for sanction for cash credit limit facility. On 03.08.2018, the bank sanctioned the cash- credit limit of Rs.2.95 crore to M/s. Belmonte. Subsequently, on 18.03.2018, the cash- credit limit was enhanced to Rs.9.95 crore. On 04.06.2020, the bank also sanctioned Bank of Baroda Emergency Credit Line Scheme Limit of Rs.59 lacs. Again, on 07.01.2022, this limit was enhanced to Rs.59.50 lacs. 4. The loan was secured by hypothecation of stocks and book debts of Rs.1113.52 lacs as on 29.04.2022. 5. The borrower Sri Manoj Kumar Goyal also mortgaged 3 commercial places measuring 3780 sqft., 2820 sqft. and 4280 sqft. as collateral security of the loan. The total value of collateral securities was Rs.734.40 lacs as on 29.04.2022. These commercial places are in the name of Smti. Pooja Goyal, the wife of Manoj Kumar Goyal. The 3 commercial places are situated in a single building situated within Brahmaputra Industrial Park at Gauripur, Amingaon. 6. Manoj Kumar Goyal could not repay the loan and as such his account became a Non Performing Asset (NPA). 7. During an inquiry, it was discovered that the building in which the aforementioned 3 commercial spaces are situated stands on a plot of land of Shri Manoj Kumar Goyal and the said land has been already mortgaged with State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Guwahati against cash-credit loan in the name of M/s. Pooja Tiles and Sanitary Pvt. Limited where Manoj Kumar Goyal and his wife Pooja Goyal are Directors. 8. It is alleged that Manoj Kumar Goyal, with full knowledge that the land was already mortgaged to State Bank of India, had mortgaged the 3 commercial spaces situated in a building standing on the said land. 9. 8. It is alleged that Manoj Kumar Goyal, with full knowledge that the land was already mortgaged to State Bank of India, had mortgaged the 3 commercial spaces situated in a building standing on the said land. 9. It is further alleged that while Manoj Kumar Goyal had taken the loan from Bank of Baroda, he had submitted 3 gift deeds which were issued in favour of his wife Smti. Pooja Goyal and Smti. Pooja Goyal stood as a guarantor. 10. Mr. Kamar has submitted that at this stage, keeping the petitioner in custody would not serve any purpose. Mr. Kamar has further submitted that the grounds of arrest supplied to the petitioner was written in English and Monoj Kumar Goyal is not conversant with the English language. 11. The learned counsel Mr. Kamar has submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. , reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the present petitioner Manoj Kumar Goyal was unnecessarily arrested for the offences punishable with imprisonment below 7(seven) years and extending to 7 years. 12. Ms. Kumari has submitted that in this case, some employees of the Bank might be involved. Therefore, C.B.I. has started investigation. Ms. Kumari submits that releasing the present petitioner on bail, would hamper further investigation of the case. 13. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 14. In short, it can be said that the petitioner Manoj Kumar Goyal had applied for a loan from the bank and for securing the loan, he had mortgaged some properties. He did not disclose before the Bank that he had already mortgaged those properties to another Bank for securing another loan. The Bank granted him the loan without making any inquiry or investigation. No investigation was done by Bank of Baroda before sanctioning the loan. 15. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the period of detention already undergone by the petitioner Manoj Kumar Goyal in custody deserves to be taken up as a ground for releasing him on bail. 16. The bail prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner Majoj Kumar Goyal shall be released on bail of ?50,000/-with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam. The bail application is disposed of.