G. Satapathy, J.

1. Since these five bail applications arise out of one and same case record, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. These five bail applications are U/S.483 of BNSS Act by the petitioners for grant of bail in connection with Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack PS Case No. 05 of 2026 corresponding to GR Case No.39 of 2026 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge(Vigilance), Cuttack/JMFC-I (Cog. Taking), Cuttack for commission of offences punishable U/Ss. 318(4)/ 319(2)/ 338/ 336(3)/ 340(2)/ 112/ 61(2) of BNS r/w Sec.66(C)(D) of IT Act.

3. The gist of the allegation against the petitioners is for opening up fake business accounts by using mobile phones, debit cards and other electronic instruments of some persons without their knowledge and subsequently, using such mule bank accounts for transfer of illegal funds through multiple bank accounts. On this issue, an FIR was lodged and registered in Cyber Crime & Economic Offences, UPD Cuttack vide FIR No.05 of 2026 and finding the involvement of the petitioners, they were taken into custody ultimately landing them in this Court in these bail applications.

4. Heard Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 1474 of 2026 and Mr. Virendra Verma, learned counsel appearing virtually for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026, Mr. Chandan Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2396 of 2026, Mr. Smruti Ranjan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2867 of 2026, Mr. Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 3066 of 2025 and Mr. S.C. Pradhan, learned Addl. PP in the matter and perused the record together with the written instruction as submitted by the Inspector of Police Cyber Crime & EOPS, Cuttack UPD.

4.1. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2314 of 2026 submits that no scientific evidence has been collected in this case and all the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable maximum up to imprisonment for seven years and thereby, the petitioner could have been let off with a notice U/S. 35(3) of BNSS in terms of the principle of law laid down in a plethora of decisions, but that has not been complied with. Mr.Verma in addition, also submits that the principal accused Bablu Nayak has already been enlarged on bail, but the petitioner is languishing in custody since long and in the meantime, charge sheet has already been submitted. More or less is the submission advanced by Mr.Smruti Ranjan Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner in BLAPL No. 2867 of 2026. Mr.Ramani Kanta Pattanaik, leaned counsel for the petitioner-Subhransu Sagar Patra @ Milan, however, strongly submits that none of the depositor has come forward to allege against the petitioner, but a police officer has lodged the FIR and how come the police officer knew what has happened to the depositors and, therefore, the very foundation of the case is unacceptable, but the petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2026 and principal accused as well as the accused persons named in the FIR having already been enlarged on bail, at least the principle of parity be extended to the petitioners.

5. On coming to the question of compliance of Sec.47 of BNSS as advanced for some of the petitioners for grant of bail, the aforesaid provision not only appears to be the statutory mandate, but also emanates from the constitution of India as a safeguard/protection against arrest and detention and non-compliance thereof not only vitiates the arrest or remand of the accused, but also allows the authority to release the accused on bail. Sec.47 of BNSS makes it imperative for the arresting officer to forthwith communicate the arrestee, who was arrested without warrant, the particulars of the offence(s) for which he is arrested or other grounds of arrest. This is not only the statutory