GAHC010259532025 2025:GAU-AS:17275

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : Bail Appln./3772/2025

RANJIT KAKOTY

SON OF LATE BIRENDRA KAKOTY

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF BHASKAR JYOTI PATH, GANDHINAGAR, P.S.

DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIIGATON (CBI)

REPRESENTED BY SC, CBI

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K MAHAJAN, MR. D BORA,MR D SAIKIA,MR. N

MAHAJAN,MR. P K DAS,MR. A CHAUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

Date : 12-12-2025

Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A. Choudhury,

learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Standing counsel assisted by Ms. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the

CBI/respondents.

2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed seeking bail in connection with FIR No. RC 2212024E0016 corresponding to Dibrugarh P.S Case No. 354/2024. the case was re-registered in CBI on 14.10.2024 under the same sections in pursuance of a notification issued on 11.10.2024 read with notification dated 9.10.2024. Though initially the petitioner was released on default bail by this Court, he is stated to have surrendered before the Trial Court on 03.10.2025 pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. The case was subsequently investigated by the CBI and a final form has been submitted, which indicates that the investigation against the petitioner is complete, however, leave to continue investigation had been sought for. It has also been submitted that the trial has not commenced yet. The charges proposed by the Final Form are under Sections 120B corresponding to Section 61 of the BNS, 2023, read with Section 409 IPC read with Section 420 of IPC, and read with Section 25 r/w Section 21(1), 21(2) and 21 (3) r/w Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 and substantive offences thereof.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner was granted statutory bail by this Court vis-à-vis purported statutory period of 60 days. The CBI took the matter up to the Hon’ble Apex Court where it became clear that the applicable statutory period was actually 90 days and accordingly, the matter was remanded back, directing the petitioner herein to surrender. A bail petition was preferred before the learned Trial Court taking, amongst others, the ground that non-compliance of provisions of Section 47 and 48 BNSS had rendered the arrest and the remand thereafter to be unsustainable in law. The said petition was however rejected and the petitioner is now before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention to the copies of the said notices under 47 and 48 BNSS annexed with the bail petition, submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court had not gone into that aspect of the matter and contends that there is violation of the law with regard to such notices and in terms of the governing law, the petitioner should be granted bail.

4. The scanned copy of the CD and other documents called for have been received. The CBI had also filed their objection which is found on record.

5. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the notices purported to have been issued under provisions of Section 47 of the BNSS 2023 reflect that they consist of information that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with the referred case, that the case is non bailable to Police and that he has been forwarded to judicial custody. The notices under section 48 of BNSS also do not specify the requirement of a notice as required in law, since it only refers to a particular case number, penal section of law and the date, time and place of arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court had come to a finding that notice in the language mentioned in the notices do not suffice the requ