Page No.# 1/7 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation
2025 Latest Caselaw 4841 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 May, 2025

Author: Manash Ranjan Pathak

Bench: Manash Ranjan Pathak

                                                                              Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010099512025




                                                                       2025:GAU-AS:6315

                            THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                             Case No. : Bail Appln./1514/2025

            PUSHPAJIT PURKAYASTHA
            S/O MR. PRADYUMNA KUMAR PURKAYASTHA
            R/O BLOCK-D, 3D, SHUBHAM MANJUSHREE, DETALPARA,
            GUWAHATI-781008, ASSAM

            VERSUS

            CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
            THROUGH THE SC, CBI

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BORA, MS T J SAHEWALLA,MR M SAHEWALLA,MS. N
SHYAMAL
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,


                                        BEFORE
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

                                         ORDER

20-05-2025

Heard Mr. Pran Bora, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mayank Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Manorama Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI for the sole respondent.

2. The petitioner, namely, Pushpajit Purkayastha, son of Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Purkayastha, resident of Block-D, 3D, Shubham Manjushree, Detalpara, Guwahati-781008, Assam has filed this application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on 09.03.2025 praying for his bail in CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi under Sections Page No.# 2/7

3(5)/316(5)/318(4), BNS, 2023, read with Section 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 arising out of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 288/2024, in which, he was arrested on 13.04.2025 and is in custody since then.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on similar grounds and in the same case, another co-accused, namely, Sandeep Gupta from Tinsukia, who was arrested on 14.04.2025 has already been released on bail by order dated 06.05.2025, passed in BA No.1313/2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the said order dated 06.05.2025, passed in BA No. 1313/2025 along with this bail application as Annexure-XI.

4. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel also submitted that in the same CBI case, earlier, one Monalisha Das, arrested on 21.08.2024 was granted bail by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.11.2024 passed in BA No. 2970/2024 (Annexure-IX).

5. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the CBI preferred an application, being I.A.(Crl) No. 1220/2024 for cancellation of bail of said accused Monalisha Das. But the Court after considering the materials by order dated 14.02.2025 dismissed the said I.A.(Crl) No. 1220/2024, preferred by the CBI and allowed said Monalisha Das to remain on bail in the said CBI Case (Annexure-X).

6. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that he is entitled for bail in said CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi on the ground of party.

7. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner himself invested his own money in the concerned stock and lost his money.

8. It is placed before the Court by Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel that whenever, the CBI directed him to appear prior to his arrest, he on every occasion appeared before the CBI and co-operated with the investigation of the case, but he was arrested on his last appearance before the CBI on 13.04.2025.

9. From the objection filed by the CBI, Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel placed that similar grounds of objection was also submitted by the CBI in the case of said Sandeep Gupta as in the case of the present petitioner that were considered by the Co-ordinate Bench and thereafter, by order dated 06.05.2025 passed in BA No. 1313/2025 granted bail to said Page No.# 3/7

Sandeep Gupta, noted above.

10. Mr. Bora, learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention for releasing the petitioner on bail, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40.

11. Matter relates to deposit of huge amount of money in a financial organization, namely, DB Stock Consultancy, owned by one Dipankar Barman, which does not have the recognition of the Reserve Bank of India.

12. It is placed before the Court that such investment and/or deposit in said DB Stock Consultancy comes under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019.

13. In the objection filed by the CBI, it is placed before the Court that the DB Stock Consultancy lured the people by various investments schemes with inflated/exaggerated returns, such as, (i) Scheme-A@ 120%, where mode of tenure was 365 days and above (yearly); (ii) Scheme-B @ 54%, where mode of return is 180 days (half yearly); (iii) Scheme- C @ 24%, where mode of return is 90 days (quarterly); (iv) Scheme-D @ 7.5%, where mode of return is 30 days (monthly) and (v) Scheme-E @ 1.25%, where mode of return is 7 days (weekly).

14. It is placed before the Court by the CBI that the accused Dipankar Barman of said DB Stock Consultancy along with others defrauded more than 9947 numbers of innocent people (investors/depositors) deceitfully receiving their investment of Rs.3,81,37,08,175/- from January, 2022 to August, 2024 and that during the course of the investigation many such people involved with such DB Stock Consultancy were arrested.

15. On completion of the initial investigation Final Report/Offence Report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS, 2023 was submitted by the CBI against some of the accused persons and further investigation of said CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi under Section 193 (3) of the BNSS presently under process.

16. Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI submitted that the petitioner in the case in hand being a Bank Employee and working as Assistant Vice President (Manager) of Axis Bank at Rehabari Branch was fully aware of the Scheme of the Nationalised Banks as well as the Banks/financial Institutions duly recognised by the Reserve Bank of India.

Page No.# 4/7

17. CBI placed before the Court that the petitioner himself being an high ranking personnel of the Axis Bank, induced many customers of the Bank itself for their investments/deposits in said DB Stock Consultancy and for that purpose, the petitioner made such investors/depositors to deposit such money in the bank account of his own mother and after such deposits/investments by the investors/depositors, the petitioner from the said bank account of his mother, deposited the amounts with the DB Stock Consultancy and thereby, earned huge amount of share money in his other bank accounts.

18. It is contended on behalf of the CBI by Mr. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, that the petitioner being a Bank employee is fully aware that such high rate of interest cannot be given to such investors/depositors within short period and above that he is also aware that said DB Stock Consultancy does not have any due recognition of the RBI and others, as required under the law for any financial institution and inspite of that he was involved in such unregulated banning of deposits.

19. It is also submitted by Ms. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI that investigation is still going on and if at this stage, the petitioner is released on bail, without completion of investigation, it will be difficult for the CBI to unearth many other facts relating to deposit of such money in the DB Stock Consultancy, in which the petitioner played an active role.

20. With regard to parity in granting bail, Ms. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI placed a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana decided on 24.04.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.422/2021, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 wherein their Lordships have held that The High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail.Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance.

21. Ms. Kumari, learned Standing Counsel, CBI submitted that in the case in hand, the petitioner is the Assistant Vice President (Manager) of Axis Bank at Rehabari Branch, Page No.# 5/7

whereas, the other accused, Sandeep Gupta, who was arrested on 14.04.2025 in CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhiand has been released on bail by order dated 06.05.2025, passed in BA No.1313/2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, is a Medicine Representative.

22. The CBI has placed the up-to-date case diary along with the Call Detail Reports and Whatsapp call made by the petitioner along with other depositors/investors as well as the accused Dipankar Barman of said DB Stock Consultancy.

23. Case diary contains sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner as to how he lured innocent people to make their money invested with the DB Stock Consultancy promising them excessively high returns on their such deposits and compelling such customers of his Bank as well as to others to deposit with the DB Stock Consultancy.

24. In that regard, case diary also contains several such transactions in his bank account including the deposits in the account of his mother operated by him, payments made through GPay or other transactions which he had deposited with the DB Stock Consultancy.

25. The case diary also consists sufficient statements of the persons, whom the petitioner introduced to Dipankar Barman of said DB Stock Consultancy and taking money from them and investing it with the DB Stock Consultancy under various schemes and thereby earning share money against such deposits.

26. Case diary also reflects the investment of huge money, in lakhs and crores by various customers/depositors with the said DB Stock Consultancy in its various schemes, at the behest of the petitioner with whom he had connection, many of whom are also from outside the state.

27. Case diary also indicates that the investigation against the petitioner is presently going on.

28. Matter relates to economic offence and also offence under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 involving huge crores of public money.

29. From the case of Sanjay Chandra (supra), it can be seen that it is a case where the accused was languishing in jail for long during the trial of the case. In that back ground their Page No.# 6/7

Lordships in the said case of Sanjay Chandra, observing that --bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception; seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor:

the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction; the provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions; since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general, granted bail to said Sanjay Chandra.

30. But in the case in hand the investigation with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in case is still going on. The matter relates to economic offence of huge magnitude involving public money.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI -Vs.- Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 have held that -- While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32. In the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy -Vs.- CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 the Hon'ble Supreme Court have held that --

"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies Page No.# 7/7

and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

33. Considering such materials in the case diary placed before the Court, it is seen that the petitioner, being a Banker, cannot be said to be in the same footing as that of the other accused Sandeep Gupta, being a Medicine Representative, who was released on bail by order dated 06.05.2025, passed in BA No.1313/2025 in the same CBI Case involving the petitioner. As such the claim of the petitioner for his bail in parity cannot be considered.

34. After hearing the parties and considering the entire aspects of the matter and since the investigation against him in said CBI Case is at initial stage, therefore, though he is in detention since 13.04.2025, the bail of the petitioner, Pushpajit Purkayastha, son of Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Purkayastha, cannot be considered in said CBI Case No.RC 221 2024 E0013/CBI/EO-III/New Delhi,at this stage, and accordingly, stands rejected.

35. Return the case record herewith.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant