Bharat Kumar Soni @ Bharat Soni @ Ajay Soni vs. The State Of Assam

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Kumar Soni, a jeweller, was arrested in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No.106/2026. The case involved alleged illegal IPL betting and gambling activities by Alok Jain and others. Police recovered cash, mobile phones, bank passbooks, and a firearm. During the investigation, it was discovered that Alok Jain had deposited money earned from gambling into the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner claimed he sold gold and silver to Alok Jain and received money for these transactions, providing tax invoices as proof. He argued that if the money were from illegal activities, he would have had to pay GST, which he would not do for gambling proceeds. The petitioner also alleged a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution due to delayed production before the court.

Held

The Court held that while Alok Jain might have converted ill-gotten gambling money into gold by purchasing it from the petitioner, this did not automatically mean the petitioner aided Alok Jain in his illegal activities. The Court found that the petitioner, as a jeweller, sold gold and silver to Alok Jain, and these sales, supported by tax invoices and bank transfers, were not inherently illegal. The Court noted that the investigating officer referred to bank remittances and WhatsApp chats. However, the Court concluded that selling gold bars and ornaments to Alok Jain, after receiving payment, did not justify the petitioner's detention in light of Alok Jain's illegal activities. The Court was of the opinion that the petitioner did not deserve to be detained any longer. The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was to be released on bail of ₹50,000/- with a surety of like amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's transactions of selling gold and silver to Alok Jain, who was involved in illegal gambling, constitute aiding and abetting illegal activities, justifying his detention? (Question of law and fact, turning on Sections 351(2)/61/3(5)/111 and 112 of BNS, 2023, and Section 9(1)/9(3) of the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025). 2. Whether the petitioner's arrest and subsequent production before the court beyond 24 hours violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India, entitling him to bail? (Question of law, turning on Article 22(2) of the Constitution of India). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that his transactions with Alok Jain were legitimate sales of gold and silver, evidenced by tax invoices. He argued that he would have paid GST on such sales, which would not be the case for illegal gambling money, thus demonstrating his lack of involvement in illegal activities. He also argued that the delay in his production before the court violated Article 22(2) of the Constitution, citing the precedent in *Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sarma*. Revenue's arguments: The State argued that Alok Jain converted money earned from gambling into gold, which was why money was deposited into the petitioner's bank account. They submitted that the investigation was in its nascent stage and required more time.