Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs State Of Assam on 15 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010270882025
2025:GAU-AS:17343
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./3943/2025
DIPJYOTI DAS
S/O- RATNESWAR DAS R/O- SARPARA P.S.- PALASHBARI DIST- KAMRUP
STATE- ASSAM
2: KUSHALIN SARMA
S/O- LT. SANJOY KR. SARMA R/O- BONGAIGAON W/NO.-2
T.R PHUKAN ROAD P.S.- BONGAIGAON DIST- BONGAIGAON STATE- ASSA
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, GAUHATI HIGH
COURT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P.HAZARIKA, MR D MEDHI,MS A.DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 15-12-2025 Heard Mr. A. Chamuah, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on Page No.# 2/6 behalf of the State respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is behind bars since 23.11.2025 in connection with Azara P.S. Case No. 179/2025 u/s 61(2)/319(2)/318(3)/318(4)/336(3)/337/340(2)/341(2)/ 341(3)/341(4)/308(5) of BNS, 2023.
3. Case Diary is received and perused the same.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Chamuah that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and there is no allegation brought against the present accused/petitioner that he had committed or cheated or threatened any person except there is an allegation of attempt, there is no evidence to attract Section 308 IPC and the other sections under which the case is registered. Mr. Chamuah further submitted that altogether there are eleven sections of BNSS have been incorporated in the FIR at the time of registering the same and out of eleven nos. of sections of BNSS, only four sections are non-bailable and all other sections are bailable in nature. Mr. Chamuah further raised the issue that from the FIR itself it is seen that the accused/petitioner was apprehended on 23.11.2025 which is the date of occurrence. But, he is shown to be arrested only on 24.11.2025 after detaining him more than 24 hours and again he was produced only on 25.11.2025 before the learned Court below on arrest. Thus, it is the complete violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and also violates the rights of the present petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Police was duty bound to produce the accused/petitioner within 24 hours of his arrest or detention before the learned Magistrate. But, in the violation of the Article 22(2), the accused was not produced even after lapse of 24 hours of his detention.
Page No.# 3/6
5. In that context Mr. Chamuah also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 Supreme(SC) 262 [Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma], and emphasized on para 6 of the said judgment wherein also it has been observed that a person cannot be in custody without producing him before the learned Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours and which violates the fundamental rights under Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India and even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 also violated.
6. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Chamuah that the present case of the petitioner is also squarely covered wherein also the accused/petitioner was detained on 23.11.2025 and he was shown to be arrested on 24.11.2025 and produced before the learned Magistrate only on 25.11.2025 violating the Article 22(2) and also Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for which the petitioner is entitled for bail.
7. However, it is submitted by Mr. Chamuah that the present accused/petitioner being a permanent resident of his addressed locality will extend his cooperation in further investigation of the case as and when his cooperation will be required.
8. Mr. Sharma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the Case Diary and the present accused/petitioner disclosed his identify as the Associate Director of DRDO and his number plate are also affixed in his vehicle in both front side and back side with the same identity and during search operation various objectionable articles and documents were recovered from his house and in both the number plates of the vehicle it was written as Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, disclosing his identity as Associate Director, Directorate of Page No.# 4/6 International Cooperation, DRDO and some other documents including the identity card wherein also he disclosed his identity as Associate Director, DRDO, Ministry of Defence, using some barcode affixing his photographs and in one identity card it is also written as Ministry of Defence, DRDO, H290 DIC in his name. Apart from that many other articles including some agreements etc. were recovered from the possession of the present accused/petitioner and accordingly Mr. Sharma raised vehement objection and submitted that the accused/person have impersonated high ranking DRDO/MOD Officers using fake government identity card, fake defence number plate etc. The case is still under investigation and accordingly the further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner will be required for the interest of justice.
9. Mr. Sharma further submitted that it is not a case that the present petitioner was apprehended or arrested on 23.11.2025 but, it is a case wherein after getting the information the petitioner was interrogated and a preliminary enquiry was made by registering G.D. Entry and after the preliminary enquiry only the FIR was registered on 24.11.2025 and by complying the notices u/s 47 & 48 BNSS, the accused/petitioner was arrested and accordingly produced before the learned Magistrate on 25.11.2025. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma submitted that during the preliminary enquiry some objectionable documents were seized by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses and only after completion of preliminary enquiry, the case was registered and thus there cannot be any violation of Article 22(2) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rather there was total complying of Sections 47 & 48 of the BNSS and the case was accordingly registered and was produced before the Court. Mr. Sharma raised vehement objection and submitted that this is not at all a fit case to extend bail to the present accused/petitioner at this stage where investigation Page No.# 5/6 is still going on and considering the gravity and the nature of the offence some further custodial interrogation may be required for the purpose of investigation.
10. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the case records, the bail objection filed by the I/O as well as other matters in the Case Diary. From the available documents as well as the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that the present accused/petitioner along with other co-accused have created some fabricated documents to disclose his identify as Associates Director of DRDO and to that extent they also created/fabricated some documents, seals etc. and also obtained one fake PhD certificate stated to be issued by London South Bank University Honorary Home Minister, Amit Shah along with some letters of appreciation is also fabricated by using some forged seals and signatures only to disclose his identity as Associate Director of DRDO. More so from the available materials in the Case Diary it also reveals that the present petitioner along with one of the co-accused had also started some fake project in the name of KMP Mine Project, Meghalaya and Non-Logistic Union Project from Nagaland and accordingly there was a transaction of 85 lacs of rupees only showing their identity as stated above. Thus, it is seen that there are sufficient incriminating materials showing involvement of the present accused/petitioner in the alleged offence.
11. Coming to the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in regards to issue of apprehending of accused on 23.11.2025, it is seen on the note of the I/O that after receiving the information from reliable source a G.D. Entry was made and on the basis of which only a preliminary enquiry was done wherein some of the statement of witnesses were also recorded and some Page No.# 6/6 preliminary investigation was done and thereafter only the FIR was finally lodged on 24.11.2025 and complying of required formalities u/s 47 & 48 BNSS the present accused/petitioner was arrested on 24.11.2025 and thereafter he was forwarded before the learned Magistrate on 25.11.2025. Thus, it cannot be held that there was an illegal arrest of the accused/petitioner and it is also seen that considering the nature of the allegation made against the present petitioner a preliminary enquiry had to be conducted by the Investigating Agency and findings of prima facie materials only the FIR was registered and the accused/petitioner got arrested accordingly. Thus, there cannot be any violation of Article 22(2) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Rather, there was proper compliance of rule and procedure at the time of his arrest and at the time of his forwarding before the learned Magistrate.
12. Further, considering the nature of allegation this Court is of the opinion that further custodial interrogation will be required to unearth some important facts of the case and also to apprehend other culprits in the alleged offence.
13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to grant bail to the present petitioner at this stage and hence the same stands rejected.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant