A police officer is not bound to issue a notice under Section 41A CrPC when satisfied that an arrest is necessary for investigation under the criteria specified in Section 41, and the failure of co-accused to appear does not justify the indefinite incarceration of an arrested accused.

ORDER

1. This order shall dispose of an application filed on behalf of accused/applicant Ayush Varshney under Section 480 BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail.

2. In the application, it is stated that the entire case set up by the respondent/CBI against the accused/applicant is baseless and misleading without any evidence in support; that the respondent/CBI has failed to follow the mandatory requirements in law while making the arrest of the applicant; that the continued custody of the applicant is unjustified, unwarranted and not required for the purposes of investigation, especially when the applicant has cooperated at all stages; the entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary and electronic evidence which is already in the possession of the investigating agency; that there is no possibility whatsoever of the applicant tampering with such evidence; that the alleged transactions pertain to the period 2017-2018 and despite the passage of several years, there is not even a single instance attributed to the applicant of tampering with evidence or influencing any witness; that the applicant has consistently cooperated with the investigation and has joined proceedings before various investigating agencies as and when called upon to do so; that the alleged arrest of the Applicant, effected without prior notice under Section 35 (3) BNSS and without proper written communication of the Grounds of Arrest to the Applicant and his relatives, amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that the offences alleged against the applicant carry a maximum punishment of seven years or less and therefore, in terms of the statutory mandate, arrest is not to be made as a matter of course but only upon satisfaction of necessity as contemplated under Section 35 BNSS; that the purported "grounds of arrest" and "reasons of arrest supplied by the respondent are wholly mechanical, vague and bereft of any specific material qua the Applicant; that such vague allegations, without any specific overt act demonstrating dishonest intention or participation in the alleged fraud, cannot justify the arrest and detention of the Applicant; that the applicant is not involved in the development of the alleged MCAP token and therefore the allegations are completely false; that the essential ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust are completely absent qua the Applicant; that the Applicant had no role whatsoever in the inception or operation of the alleged fraudulent scheme; that the Respondent/CBI has failed to establish any nexus or link between the applicant's limited role in software development and the alleged fraudulent investment activities in the absence of any such connection, the implication of the Applicant is unjustified and unsustainable in law; that there is no allegation or material to show that any part of the alleged funds or Bitcoins collected from investors was ever received, controlled or benefited the applicant, thereby completely demolishing the prosecution's case qua wrongful gain or misappropriation; that the co-accused, namely Nikunj Jain and Sahil Baghla, who are stated to have had a more active role in the affairs of the company Darwin, were granted regular bail by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay; that the alleged transactions pertai