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 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 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.