Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010123772026 2026:GAU-AS:8889 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1628/2026 SRI SOUNDARYYA YOGI W/OLATE BHAIRAB NATH, RESIDENT OF EVJYOTI APARTMENT, PANJABARINAMGHOR PATH, P.O. BAGHORBARI, P.S. SATGAON, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR, SR. ADV., MR D GOGOI,MR S HUSSAIN,MR SAURADEEP DEY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 19.06.2026 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Barua, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Page No.# 2/5 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the petitioner who was arrested on 25.05.2026 in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 323/2025, registered under Sections 308(4)/308(2)/329(4)/3(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The facts of the case are such that the petitioner has an earlier dispute with the present informant when she took up the case of another lady whose son was admitted to the school run by the informant. The matter was thereafter settled at the police station. 4. Four days after the incident, the principal of Little Steps Funstone Pre- School lodged an FIR at the Dispur Police Station levelling allegations against the Petitioner by stating that he and his two colleagues had threatened the informant by using the names of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and another prominent Cabinet Minister and also two other persons. It was alleged that the Petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the informant. On the basis of these allegations, the Dispur P.S. Case No. 323/2026 dated 24.5.2026 was registered under Sections 3(5)/308(2)/308(4)/329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 25.05.2026. 5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that since there was no delivery of any money and only a demand was made, no offence Page No.# 3/5 of extortion had been made out. He further 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 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. 9. It appears that the I/O has prepared a check list, wherein, all the reasons Page No.# 4/5 mentioned in Section 35(1)(b) of BNSS have been incorporated verbatim and 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. What has been recorded by the I/O is that “during the investigation, the person a fails to comply with the terms of notice or is unwilling to identify himself, he may subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in this notice”. 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 24 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. 50,000/-, 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. Page No.# 5/5 13. The petition is allowed accordingly. 14. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant