Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010106092026 2026:GAU-AS:8816 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1450/2026 DEBAJIT CHANGMAI S/O-SRI JATIN CHANGMAI, R/O- VILL. P.O-LEZAI, P.S-BORBARUAH, DISTRICT-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., MS. P BORAH,MR. K GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR M AHMED,MR. A S TAPADER BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 18.06.2026 Heard Ms. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. A.S. Tapader, learned counsel for the informant. Page No.# 2/4 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner in connection with Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 203/2025, registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. An FIR was lodged by one Bharat Ranjan Phukan, authorized signatory of VGM Consultants Limited, Guwahati, whereupon, an enquiry was conducted by the police and report submitted and on the basis of the same report, the instant Hatigaon P.S. Case No. 203/2025, has been registered under Section 316(2)/318(4) of BNS, and the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2026 and since then, he has been in custody for about 30 days. 4. As per allegation, the petitioner, who is an employee of the informant’s company, was in-charge of receiving money collected as EMIs and he transferred a huge amount of money of about Rs. 24,00,000/-, to his account and misappropriated the same. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences alleged are punishable by up to 7 years of imprisonment and therefore, it was incumbent upon the I/O to have issued notice to the petitioner under Section 35(3) of BNSS. But, no such notice was issued and thereby, the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau Of Page No.# 3/4 Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 81 have been violated . 6. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor after consulting the Case Diary has stated that no such written notice is to be found therein, although a check list containing the Reasons for Arrest is available therein. 7. The law in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (Supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (Supra) to the effect that, in cases of offences punishable up-to 7 years imprisonment, a notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS is the rule, although in certain cases, when necessary and upon arriving at the satisfaction in this regard, the I/O may arrest the accused for any of the reasons stated in Section 35(1)(a) and (b) of BNSS. 8. In the present case, it appears that no written notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued to the petitioner, although it is noted in the Case Diary that he was asked to come to the Police Station by telephone, but the petitioner failed to so appear and subsequently, he was arrested from his house in Dibrugarh. 9. It appears that the I/O has prepared a check list, wherein, all the reasons mentioned in Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS have been incorporated verbatim and tick marked as ‘Yes’. But, no such specific reasons necessitating the arrest upon which the I/O was satisfied that the arrest was essential, has been recorded. All Page No.# 4/4 that has been recorded by the I/O is that during the investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the accused person, who is involved in committing the crime. No other justification has been provided. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above does not amount to sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS, as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. 11. Considering the above, as well as the fact that the petitioner has spent 30 days behind bars and the I/O had sufficient opportunity to interrogate the petitioner during police remand, the prayer for bail is allowed. 12. The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-, with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M). It is further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation as and when called for and shall not try to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any manner. 13. The petition is allowed accordingly. 14. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant