ORDER

Date : 26.11.2024 Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Haloi, learned Standing counsel, CBI.

2. By filing this application u/s 483 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner, Abhijit Chanda, has prayed for regular bail in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 352/2024 (GR Case No. 32/2024) registered under Section 316(2)/318(4) of BNS, 2023 read with section 21/23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

3. The FIR dated 02/09/2024 discloses that as reported by news channel through its face book page, a video surfaced showing Bishal Phukan, a businessman from Dibrugarh, allegedly involved in a financial scam in violation of RBI/ SEBI regulations. According to the report, accused Bishal Phukan lured individuals entering into notarized agreements, promising high returns on investments and subsequently deposited their money into his personal demat account, contrary to SEBI guidelines.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the case was registered, the police had arrested FIR named accused Bishal Phukan on 03.09.2024 and on 04.09.2024 the police had arrested the present petitioner without any prior intimation, whereas his name nowhere reflected in the FIR and in the view of the matter based on the statement of an accused, the petitioner put behind the bar without there being any credible material establishing any connection of the petitioner with the alleged commission of offence and in view of the matter the detention of the petitioner for last forty days is absolutely illegal.

5. It is further submitted that the forwarding report of the investigating agency in a general way alleged that the petitioner is a close associate of the prima accused Bishal Phukan and he used to procure business by alluring clients and there exists sufficient digital and documentary evidence towards commission of cheating and criminal breach of trust by the petitioner, although, in the forwarding report, no specific evidence exists so as to establish the allegation of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is further contended that the petitioner himself also a victim of financial fraud as he had invested his hard earned money by executing an agreement and in that view of the matter, the investigating agency falsely implicated the petitioner without there being any criminal act on his part.

6. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating officer could not specify as to the name of the persons who were allured by the petitioner and how much money was invested by him through cheating and moreover, the SEBI has not lodged any FIR as mandated in the BUDS Act, 2019 as such, it cannot be said that there being any cheating on the part of the petitioner and in that view of the matter, further custodial interrogation is not required in any manner which is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Considering the length of detention, the petitioner may be released on bail.

7. Another contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, presence of the petitioner admittedly not procured before the CBI court, either personally or through video conferencing. Further admittedly, the information about the filing of petitions by the CBI counsel for adding such sections also not provided to the accused/ petitioner.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the accused/ petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody for last 84 days, since his arrest on 04/09/2024. When the alleged provision of section 409 IPC or section 316(5) of BNS were added, by that time the mandatory period of 60 days is over. The case is originally registered u/s 316(2)/ 318 of BNS and 21/23 of BUDS Act, wherein the mandatory period is 60 days, as such, the petitioner is entitled for default bail.

9. In response, learned Standing counsel CBI, has vehemently opposed in granting bail to the petitioner by stating that it is an economic offence a