Bail granted where arrest memo was absent, arrest grounds were not duly served, and prolonged custody was unnecessary.

The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 446/2026, registered under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), read with Sections 66C, 66D and 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The FIR arose from an allegation that the informant’s biometric, fingerprint and iris-scan details, collected in connection with a Skill India-related programme, might be misused for generating or recording attendance.

The petitioner contended that he was merely a worker at a franchise operated by Ali Akbar and that no arrest memo or properly served notice under Section 48 BNSS, along with the grounds of arrest, had been furnished to him.

The petitioner had spent approximately 50 days in custody, had been interrogated in police custody, and the investigation was likely to require considerable time for completion.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 483 BNSS in view of the alleged procedural deficiencies concerning the arrest memo and service of the notice under Section 48 BNSS?

Whether the petitioner’s period of custody, completion of police interrogation, and the anticipated duration of the investigation justified his release on bail?

The Court applied Section 483 BNSS, which empowers the High Court to grant bail in appropriate cases.

It considered the procedural safeguards relating to arrest, including the requirement of an arrest memo and service of the notice and grounds of arrest under Section 48 BNSS, as relied upon in the petitioner’s submissions.

The Court also applied the established bail considerations of the length of custody, completion of custodial interrogation, the nature and stage of the investigation, and the need to secure the accused’s cooperation with the investigation.

The prosecution allegations arose under the specified provisions of the BNS and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court found that no arrest memo was available in the case diary and that the petitioner’s contention regarding non-service of the notice under Section 48 BNSS appeared to have substance.

It further noted that the petitioner had already been thoroughly interrogated in police custody and had remained in custody for about 50 days.

Since the case diary indicated that the investigation would take considerable time, continued detention was not considered necessary, particularly when the petitioner could be subjected to the condition of cooperating with the investigation and appearing before the Investigating Officer when required.

The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

He was required to continue cooperating with the investigation and to appear before the Investigating Officer whenever required or summoned.

The bail application was accordingly disposed of.