Muliyasiya Anil Sarman v. State
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRM (SB)/3/2026 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023) filed on 02.02.2026 in connection with F.I.R. No. 82 of 2024 dated 28.04.2024, PS Cyber Crime under Sections 66 D of the Information Technology Act 2000 and Sections 419/420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands being G. R. Case No. 454/2024.
And In the matter of Muliyasiya Anil Sarman Vs The State (U.T. of A & N Islands) Mr. Deep Chaim Kabeer, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Ajith Prasad ... for the petitioner Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State February 05, 2026 [AKB] Item No.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he was all along cooperating with the Investigating Officer but inspite of such cooperation, the petitioner was taken into custody in gross violation of law. The grounds of arrest were not intimated to him in the language he understands. He is a resident of Gujarat and only knows Gujarati language. The arrest memo shows that he signed the said memo in Gujarati. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in different reported judgments were not complied with. In this regard, the learned senior Counsel Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir has
drawn the attention of this Court to the judgments reported in 2025 INSC 1288 Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No. 4505/2025 (SLP Criminal No. 198/2025) Ahmed Mansoor and Ors. - vs - The State Rep. By, Assistant Commissioner of Police and Others, dated 14.10.2025 and unreported decision in CRM (NDPS) No. 146 of 2025 of the High Court of Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) decided on 11.06.2025 Sudhar Mangar - vs - The State of West Bengal. The learned senior Counsel has also mentioned that he was in the custody for about 45 days and it also transpires that although the case was started on 28.04.2024, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41 (A) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure more than one year after the initiation of the case. The other accused persons are absconding and there is no chance of an early conclusion of the trial since investigation is still going on.
The learned counsel for the State Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar has opposed the prayer for bail vehemently. According to him it is a case of digital arrest of a lady who was compelled to transfer Rs. 1 Crore in three different accounts on the basis of phone calls received from unknown person. After thorough investigation the investigating officer was able to apprehend one account holder in whose account Rs. 20 Lakhs was transferred and two account holders in whose accounts rest of the fund was transferred are still absconding. On the basis of the arrested accused's statement, the investigating officer had come to know that the present petitioner was the
master mind and a Notice under Section 41 A of the Code of the Criminal Procedure was issued and after his arrival at Andaman, he was thoroughly interrogated and after finding that he was involved with the racket, he was taken into custody. The learned counsel for the State has also drawn the attention of this Court to the arrest memo wherein he has shown that grounds of arrest were clearly narrated to the petitioner and at that time petitioner's sister's husband was present. He has also distinguished the present case with the factual matrix of Sudhar Mangar's case (Supra). According to him in Sudhar Mangar's case (Supra), grounds of arrest were not properly mentioned or were not properly explained to the concerned accused, whereas, in this case the petitioner was informed about the ground of arrest. As the investigation is going on and several accused persons are absconding, he opposes the prayer for bail. He has also submitted that there is a flight risk, if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
I have gone through the materials on record it is found that the grounds of arrest were appeared to have narrated to the petitioner. However, it is not clear whether the said grounds of arrest were narrated to the petitioner in Gujarati language. This is clearly a violation of the judicial decisions which make it mandatory that the accused must be informed the grounds of arrest in the language which he understands but that is not done here. However, it also appears that apart from coaccused's statement, the Investigating Officer is unable to unearth the other materials by which it can be shown
apparently that petitioner was involved in the commission of the offence. The Investigating Officer has got sufficient time to unearth the link but in vain. However it is found from the materials on record that before his arrest, the petitioner cooperated with the Investigating Officer.
In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the prayer for bail to the petitioner but on certain stringent conditions. The petitioner may find bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each out of which one must be local subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and petitioner shall remain within the jurisdiction of Cyber Crime Police Station, Port Blair, Andaman and shall meet the Investigation Officer twice in a week and shall not leave the Island until further order. He shall inform his current local address to the learned Trial Court and the Investigating Officer.
CD be returned.
CRM (SB)/3/2026 is thus disposed of.
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)