Gauhati High Court
Gopal Paul vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 July, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010104392025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Bail Appln./1644/2025
GOPAL PAUL
S/O- JAGADISH CHANDRA PAUL.
R/O- MALIBARI SATRA, MALIBARI PATHAR,
P.O- MALIBARI BAZAR, P.S.- BOKO.
DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781136.
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY SC, CBI
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. V A CHOWDHURY, MS. C CHOUDHURY,MR M
BARMAN,MR. D GAGAI,MR. A M BORA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
ORDER
Date : 28.07.2025
1. Mr. A. M. Bora, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. A. Chowdhury,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Kumari, learned Special Public
Prosecutor, CBI.
2. This application under section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner,
namely, Gopal Paul, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.11.2024, (for
Page No.# 2/8
last 8 months and 15 days), in connection with Special Case No. 2/2025
corresponding to CBI Case No. RC 221/2024/E0018, pending before the Court of
learned Special Judge, Additional, CBI Court No. 3.
3. The gist of accusation in this case is that, on 13.08.2024, one, Sanjib Bora,
Member of All Assam Law Students Union, had lodged an FIR, before the Officer-
in-charge of Odalbakra Police Outpost, Guwahati, inter alia, alleging that M/s AJRS
Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Company is involved in collecting deposits illegally for trading
activities without any lawful authority and also by misleading the public with a
promise of lucrative returns and thereby it has violated the provisions of the law.
The FIR was initially registered as Dispur Case No. 849/2024 under Sections
120(B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 5 of the Assam
Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment), Act. However,
subsequently, the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, and
it was re-registered as RC 221/2024/E0018. It is pertinent to mention herein that
by order dated 14.09.2024, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M),
Guwahati had allowed the prayer of the Investigating Officer for addition of
Sections 21(1)/21(2)/21(3)/22/23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes
Act.
4. The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that though
the petitioner was arrested on 12.11.2024 and since then he has been languishing
behind the bars, however, at the time of his arrest, no notice under Section 47 of
BNSS was served on him. He also submits that neither any notice under Section 48
was served on his relatives, friends, nominated persons of the petitioner at the
time of his arrest. He submits that no arrest memo was furnished to the petitioner
at the time of his arrest. However, the Annexure- “A” in which the grounds of arrest
were mentioned as per the endorsement in the Column No. 10 of the arrest memo,
was not furnished to him. He submits that though the petitioner has put his
Page No.# 3/8
signatures on the arrest memo, however, no such signatures are there in the
annexure-A which is appended along with the arrest memo. He, therefore, submits
that in this case it has been a violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner,
which are guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India which are
mandatory in nature.
5. He submits that in case of violation of the mandatory provision of Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner also
submits that in the meanwhile, two of the co-accused, namely, Biswanath Roy and
Mridul Dutta, were allowed to go on bail by the Trial Court. However, the prayer for
bail of the present petitioner was rejected.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the
charge-sheet has already been laid against the petitioner and co-accused persons
under Sections 120B/409/420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections
21(1)/21(2)/21(3)/22/23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act.
7. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that mere
allegation of the failure to keep a promise is not enough to initiate criminal
proceedings. He submits that in the instant case the ingredients of offence under
Section 318(4) as well as Section 318(1) is not there. He submits that there is no
deposit scheme which is involved in this case. The petitioner’s company simply
took loan from the prospective investors with promise to return loan with some
profit. However, due to financial constraint, the petitioner’s company could not
honour this. He further submits that as the charge-sheet has already been laid and
all the relevant documents have been seized, the further custodial interrogation of
the petitioner, who has a minor daughter and an aged father to look after, is not
necessary. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the trial.
8. On the other hand, Ms. M. Kumari, the learned Special Public Prosecutor,
Page No.# 4/8
CBI has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. She
submits that the petitioner Gopal Paul is the kingpin of the offence involved in this
case. He submits that he is the director of the three companies which were found
violating the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes Act. He
submits that the petitioner and his companies have duped the innocent investors
by making false promise of high returns against investment of their hard-earned
money only with an intention to cheat them. She submits that though the charge-
sheet has been laid in this case against the present petitioner, the further
investigation is still going on in this case and releasing the petitioner at this stage
would not only hamper the ongoing trial but also further investigation.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI has also submitted that this
case involves huge amount of public money which the petitioner and his companies
collected from the general public on false promises giving them high returns.
10. She submits that economic offences of such a nature constitute a class
apart and needs to be looked into with a different approach. She also submits that
in such economic offences, deep-rooted conspiracies involving huge loss of public
funds affecting the economy of the country as a whole pose a serious threat to the
financial health of the country and, hence, she submits nature of evidence in
support of the accusation against the petitioner, the severity of punishment which
the conviction may entail, the possibility of a petitioner evading the course of
justice as well as possibility of tampering with the evidence are factors which tilt
the balance against the petitioner at this stage.
11. She also submits that the grounds of arrest of the petitioner were
communicated to him in the arrest memo, a copy of which has been served on him
at the time of his arrest. She submits that the Annexure-A appended with the
grounds of arrest lays down the basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the
Page No.# 5/8
petitioner in this case. She, therefore, submits that there has not been any
violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitutional of India
in this case. In support of her submissions, the learned Special Public Prosecutor
has cited a ruling of the Apex court in the case of ” Serious Fraud Investigation
Office Vs. Aditya Sarda” [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13956 of 2023, order
dated 09.04.2025].
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the scanned copies of the case records of Special
Case No. 2/2025.
13. On perusal of the records, it appears that charge-sheet against the present
petitioner has already been laid and he has been languishing behind the bars for
last 257 days. It also appears from the records that two of the co-accused persons
have already been released by the Trial Court on bail.
14. Though, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner was not furnished with the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest
is not acceptable as from the arrest memo a copy of which was served on the
petitioner at the time of his arrest, it appears that in Annexure-A appended to the
said arrest memo basic facts which necessitated the arrest of the petitioner were
mentioned.
15. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has not received Annexure-A and no signature of petitioner is there on
Annexure-A, however, no such endorsement, that the petitioner has not received
the Annexure-“A”, is there in the arrest memo on which the petitioner has put his
signature at the time of putting his signatures in the arrest memo. He has not
stated therein that Annexure-A as mentioned in Column No. 10 of the arrest memo
was not furnished to him, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was
Page No.# 6/8
not served with the Annexure-A in which grounds of arrest were stated is not
acceptable. However, leaving apart the aforesaid contention, the fact remains that
the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 257 days and the Trial
Court has rejected the bail of the petitioner mainly on the ground that incriminating
materials are there in the charge-sheet against him and the offence involved in this
case is an economic offence involving huge quantity of public funds.
16. On perusal of the rulings cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, it
appears that though economic offences are to be treated as offences of a different
nature and a different approach has to be taken while considering the grant of bail
in such cases, however, the fact remains that mere accusation of having involved in
such economic offences without there being any material on record to show that
the petitioner may evade the course of justice or that he may tamper with the
evidence, may not be the sole ground for rejecting the bail in such cases. If only
on the basis of the fact that the offence involved in a case is economic offences
and there are materials in the records against the petitioner, bail is rejected, then
no accused against whom charge-sheet has been laid in such offence would get
bail which appears to be incorrect proposition of law.
17. The factors indicated by the Apex Court in the in its judgments, which have
been cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor must be there to reject the bail
of the petitioner. More so, considering the fact that the petitioner has been
languishing behind the bars for 257 days and there is no basis to be apprehensive
that the petitioner may evade the course of justice for his attendance may not be
procured during the trial.
18. Moreover as charge-sheet has already been laid against the petitioner, all
the incriminating materials collected against him, which are documentary in nature,
are the possession of the Trial Court and the prosecution side. There does not
Page No.# 7/8
appear to be any basis to be apprehensive that the petitioner may tamper with the
evidence. Such apprehension would only be speculative in absence of any basis for
the same.
19. Considering the above facts as well as the fact that the petitioner has been
detained behind the bars for last 257 days and two of the co-accused persons
against whom also charge-sheet have been filed, have already been released on
bail, there may not be any justification for continued detention of the present
petitioner if he co-operates in the trial.
20. In view of above, the above named petitioner, namely, Gopal Paul is
allowed to go on bail of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with two sureties of like
amount subject to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, Additional, CBI Court
No. 3, Guwahati with following conditions:-
i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial of Special Case No.
2/2025, which is pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge,
Additional, CBI Court No. 3, Guwahati;
ii. That the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court as and when so
required by the Trial Court;
iii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat, or promise to any person who may be acquainted
with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such person from disclosing
such facts before the Trial Court in the trial pending against the present
petitioner;
iv. That the petitioner shall provide his contact details including
photocopies of his Aadhar Card or Driving License or PAN card as well
as, mobile number, and other contact details before the Trial Court;
Page No.# 8/8
v. That the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court
without prior permission of the Trial Court and when such leave is
granted by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall submit his leave address
and contact details during such leave before the Trial Court; andvi. That the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;
vii. That the petitioner shall deposit his passport before the Trial Court
and shall not leave this country during the pendency of the trial without
prior permission of the Trial Court.
21. This bail application is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant