[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Deepankar Barman vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 19 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010003732026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./55/2026
DEEPANKAR BARMAN
SON OF SHRI CHABIN BARMANR/O FLAT NO. 4C, ABHIGUNARESIDENCY,
GOTANAGAR, TETELIA, P.S. JALUIKBARI, GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
PIN-781011.
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE SC, CBI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR W R MEDHI, S I AHMED,MR P TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
19.02.2026
Heard Mr. W R Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari,
learned Standing Counsel for the CBI.
By this application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner, namely, Deepankar
Barman, has prayed for release on bail in connection with Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 288/2024.
I have perused the Trial Court's Records, which does not reveal inclusion of a Notice under
Section 48 of the BNSS,2023 being issued to any family friend or relatives although Ms. M. Kumari,
learned Standing Counsel, CBI has placed the Case Diary before this Court to show that Notice under
Page No.# 2/3
Section 48 of the BNSS has been served upon one person, who has been recorded in the Case Diary
itself to be an erstwhile employee of the organization in which the petitioner was involved.
On a pointed query, it has not been brought before this Court that the nomination of the aforesaid
person had been made by the petitioner as a friend, family or relative to be informed about his arrest.
The Case Diary further reveals that the aforesaid person had been called to the office of the CBI
on the particular day only to ascertain his connection with the organization in which the petitioner is
alleged to have been involved in. It is not understood as to how a Notice under Section 48 of the BNSS
has been served upon a person who was called in to determine his involvement in the organisation. The
aforesaid person was called for a particular purpose and, thereafter, served a Notice regarding the
grounds of arrest of another person, when there was no recording by the arresting authority that the said
person had been nominated as a friend, family or relative of the arrested person.
Ms. Kumari has submitted that since the parents of the petitioner were also in custody at the
relevant point of time, therefore, the parents could not have been informed about the grounds of arrest
of the petitioner concerned.
It has been explained to us that the petitioner had been arrested by the Assam Police from Goa
and on a prayer made before the learned Trial Court, the custody of the petitioner had been granted to
the CBI. The CBI, apparently on their records, had shown him to be arrested in connection with Paltan
Bazar P.S. Case No. 288/2024. When the CBI had shown him to be arrested in a particular case, it was
the responsibility of the arresting authority to have served a proper Notice under Section 48 of the
BNSS, 2023 upon a person, who has been nominated by the accused/petitioner to be a family friend or
relative, service of Notice upon whom would suffice to protect the interest of the arrested person during
his production or to resist his subsequent detention.
It is not for this Court in this case to comment upon the manner in which the Section 48 Notice is
required to be served to suffice the requirements of law. But this Court will only evaluate whether the
service of Notice of arrest, as had been made by the arresting authority, would suffice the requirements
of law.
In the present case, we find that when there is no record to show that the petitioner had
nominated the person upon whom the Section 48 Notice had been served was a person of his choice
and since it is also apparent from record that the said person had been called into the office only to
ascertain his involvement with the erstwhile organization, this Court finds that the requirements of
Page No.# 3/3
Section 48 of the BNSS has been violated. This has infringed the constitutional right of the petitioner as
laid down in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharastra and Another, reported in (2025) 11
SCR 291
This court also cannot loose sight of the fact that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are
serious in nature and involve an economic offence.
Under the facts and circumstances aforesaid, it is only on the ground that the constitutional right
of the petitioner has been violated. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be
granted the privilege of bail.
It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner, if not warranted in custody for any other case, shall be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) with 2 (two) local
sureties of the like amount, at least one of whom shall be a Government Servant and at least one who
should have immovable property within the State of Assam, on the following terms and conditions:
1. The petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court without
prior written permission till disposal of the case;
2. The petitioner shall regularly attend the Trial Court and the Investigating Officer to co-
operate for early disposal of the case;
3. The petitioner shall surrender his Passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court;
4. The petitioner shall furnish his bank details, Aadhar, PAN etc. before the Trial Court; and
4. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to
any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing
such facts to the Court.
The learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to impose such other condition as may be necessary.
The observation made by the Court is for the purpose of this bail application only and not on merits of
the case. Violation or breach of any condition(s) shall render cancellation of this bail.
This order would not preclude the respondents from taking any steps as per Para 55 of the
judgment that was rendered in Mihir Rajesh Shah (supra).
The bail petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
