Sapnanil Das vs. The State Of Assam

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to default bail. The petitioner was arrested on September 4, 2024, for offences under Section 316(2)/318(4) of the BNS, 2023, read with Sections 21/23 of the BUDS Act, which carry a mandatory custody period of 60 days. Section 409 IPC was added on October 29, 2024, by which time the IPC had been repealed. Subsequently, Section 316(5) of the BNS was added on November 11, 2024, after the petitioner had accrued an indefeasible right to default bail on November 2, 2024. The Court relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Alnesh Akil Somji vs. The State of Maharashtra, which held that the label of a section invoked by the investigating agency is not decisive, and the court must look into the generality of allegations and material collected. The Court found that the addition of sections was done mechanically to extend the detention period and defeat the petitioner's right to default bail. The petitioner was released on bail with specific conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Sapnanil Das, owner of Trading For A Living (TFAL), is seeking bail. The FIR lodged on August 7, 2024, alleges that the petitioner misrepresented TFAL as a leading trading community, promising guaranteed profits on online trading. The informant invested Rs. 24,00,000/- and suffered a loss, alleging the petitioner cheated others for wrongful gain. The petitioner argues TFAL is a coaching platform for stock market awareness, that he disclosed market risks, charged fees for classes, and paid GST. He claims no depositor has complained under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act), and his accounts were frozen. He was arrested on September 4, 2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to default bail, considering the timeline of charges added and the repeal of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)? This issue turns on Section 187(2) of the BNSS, 2023, and Section 167(2) of the CrPC (though not explicitly named, the principle of default bail is discussed). The petitioner argues that sections of the IPC were added after its repeal and after the period for default bail had accrued, including Section 409 IPC, to extend detention. He relies on Manish Sisodia vs. Director of Enforcement and Sharat Babu Digumarti vs. Government (NCT of Delhi). The respondent (CBI) contends that huge deposits of approximately Rs. 2.6 crores were made into the petitioner's and his family's accounts, which were not returned, indicating criminal breach of trust and unauthorized brokerage, thus justifying the invocation of Section 21(3) of the BUDS Act and Section 409 IPC and Section 316(5) of BNS, 2023.