Page No.# 1/7 vs State Of Assam on 16 February, 2026

                                                                       Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010025282026




                                                                 2026:GAU-AS:2249

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

                               Case No. : Bail Appln./394/2026

            DEBASHISH CHOUDHURY
            S/O LT GYANODHIR CHOUDHURY, R/O H NO. 01, SRI BHUMINAGAR, PS
            DISPUR, P.O. ODALBAKRA, DIST KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D MEDHI, MR K THAKUR,MR P SONOWAL

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                           BEFORE
                 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                           ORDER

16-02-2026

Heard Mr. D. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.

2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Debashish Choudhury, who Page No.# 2/7

was arrested in connection with Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 04/2026 registered under Sections 3(5)/318(4)/351(3) of the BNS, 2023.

3. Case diary received. Perused the same.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Medhi, learned counsel that present petitioner is a bank employee and he is not involved in the alleged offence. It is the only allegation against him that he took Rs.2,00,000/- with an assurance to provide loan in association with other accused persons.

5. He further submitted that there are two dates mentioned in the FIR, one is 29.07.2024 and 25.11.2024, but because of his illness as he gone for a heart surgery, he was on leave for amount one year and thus, he is not connected with the alleged offence. More so, on the subsequent dates after his joining he was transferred from Ulubari Branch to Lalganesh Branch three months prior to the next date of cause of action, i.e., on 05.08.2025. Thus, at the particular date as mentioned in the FIR, he was not in the office. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel further furnished some documents to prove that he was on leave on the particular point of time.

6. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel further submitted that inspite of the specific direction made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the police has not provided any notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the present petitioner. If the Notice under Section 35(3) would have served to the petitioner, he could have appeared with all documents to satisfy the police office before his arrest. But he was not provided with such opportunity and he was immediately arrested after issuing the notices under Sections 47 and 48 BNSS.

7. He emphasized the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court recently passed in Page No.# 3/7

the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) wherein in para 11.2 it has been held that all police officers are provided with check list containing specific sub clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii) corresponding to Section 35(3) of BNSS. But here in the instant case the police did not provide with the notice under Section 35(3) BNSS which otherwise violated the mandate of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. More so, the accused petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged in the FIR and he was discharging his duty as an bank employee sincerely since the date of his joining.

8. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has an autistic child and there is none to look after her. So considering all these aspects of the case, the petitioner may be released on bail and he will extend his cooperation in the further investigation of the case, if he is granted with the privilege of bail.

9. The petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2026 and since then, he is in custody.

10. Mr. Das, learned APP submitted in this regard the present petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence and he is the person under whose assurance the money was given by the informant with an assurance of providing a loan of Rs.20 Crore and by making a conspiracy with the other accused persons he accepted Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant and thus, it is seen that there is a clear inducement on his part to attract the alleged Section i.e., Section 318(4) of BNS.

11. Mr. Das, further submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner who is the prime accused who induced and entered into a criminal conspiracy to grab money from the informant in the name of providing Page No.# 4/7

loan to the informant .

12. Mr. Das further submitted that the check list is also available in the case diary where from it is seen that the reasons why the arrest was urgent has already been explained in the check list, which is available in the case diary. More so, he submitted that if the present petitioner was on leave at the relevant time, he could have disclosed the same before police while his statement was recorded. But there is no such statement disclosure, rather he accepted that he took Rs.2,00,000/- from the informant with an assurance to provide a loan of Rs.20 Crore and to that regard the other accused persons have also received more than Rs. 26,00,000/- from the informant. There is full compliance of Section 47 and 48 BNSS which also describes the reasons for his arrest and that apart, the check list is also available wherein it has been stated as to why the arrest of the present petitioner was necessary.

13. Mr. Das, accordingly submitted that considering the nature of offence, committed by the present petitioner his bail prayer should not be considered at this stage.

14. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case diary and the annexures appended thereto.

15. The accused petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 06.02.2026 and since then, he is in custody.

16. The learned counsel basically raised the issue that he was not provided with the Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, though it is a case under 7 years of imprisonment and he was not given any opportunity to produce the documents and other relevant papers before his arrest in compliance of Section 35(3) BNSS.

Page No.# 5/7

17. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) submitted that there is total non compliance of Section 35(3) BNSS and accordingly, the accused petitioner is entitled to go on bail.

18. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel also raised the issue that at the relevant time of incident he was on long medical leave and on the subsequent date of cause of action also he was transferred to another branch three months prior to the cause of action. But on perusal of the case diary it is seen that there is no such statement made by the accused petitioner that during pendency of this case or at the relevant time of incident, he was on medical leave, rather, it is seen that he admitted his guilt and from the entire materials on record, it is seen that he is the main person under whose inducement, the complainant/informant paid Rs.26,00,000/- for sanctioning of his loan. But there was no bank transaction in the name of the present petitioner who admittedly received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, who accordingly induced the informant for making payment as a commission to the other accused persons with a conspiracy. Thus, there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and there was huge transaction of money in the present case. Accordingly, further custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation of the case, to unearth some more facts.

19. Coming to the furnishing of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS, it is seen that prior to his arrest he was not provided with any notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. But on perusal of the check list as well as from the forwarding report, it is seen that he along with other accused persons had to be arrested as there is every chance of hampering or tampering with the investigation of the case. In the check list also it is mentioned as to why immediate arrest was necessary for Page No.# 6/7

the present accused petitioner.

20. Further, from the materials available in the case diary it also reveals that prior to the arrest of the accused petitioners there was a preliminary enquiry conducted by the I.O. and then only, the arrest was made as there was every probability of hampering or tampering with the evidences as well as the records who is also discharging his duty as a bank official at the relevant point of time. Thus, considering the reasons mentioned in the check list as well as in the forwarding report etc., it was seen that the arrest was required without even issuing notice under Section 35(3) BNSS as there was huge monetary transactions wherein, the present petitioner is the main culprit who induced the informant to pay such a huge amount of money only with an assurance to provide the loan.

21. As per guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) it was asked to the police officer to provide check list containing specified sub clauses wherein the police officer will furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest even without issuing the Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS.

22. Here in the instant case also it is seen from the materials available in the case diary as well as forwarding report and the check list that the police officer had provided some reasons for his arrest and it is also provided in the forwarding that there are every probability of hampering or tempering with the witnesses of the case. Thus, it is seen that though there is no specific reasons have been mentioned separately, but in the check list as well as in the forwarding report it has been mentioned as to why the arrest was required without issuing the Notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. More so, tempering with the bank documents also cannot be denied as the petitioner is a bank employee Page No.# 7/7

23. So considering the detail discussion made above, vis-à-vis the nature of offence, this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner will be required for the purpose of investigation of this case and as such I do not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

24. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner, namely, Debashish Choudhury, in connection with Paltanbazar P.S. Case No. 04/2026 registered under Sections 3(5)/318(4)/351(3) of the BNS, 2023 stands rejected.

25. Return the case diary.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant