Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010092952025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1405/2025 NASIR UDDIN SHEIKH @ NASIRUDDIN SEIKH VILLAGE- MILAN NAGAR, SHANTIPUR, P.S.- GOALPARA, DISTRICT - GOALPARA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN, MS. A AKHTAR,MR S K CHHETRY,MR. M ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 13.05.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State re- spondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. This application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Nasir Uddin Sheikh @ Nasiruddin Seikh, who has been detained behind the bars since 13.03.2025 in connection with Goalpara P. S. Case No. 46/2025 under Sections 120(B)/420/409 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the accusation in this case is that on 06.03.2025, one Jamela Khatun had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Goalpara Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that one house was sanctioned to the inform- ant under the government scheme of PMAY with ID No. AS148720869 and as per the Government's instruction, the petitioner had taken the bank ac- count and the picture of the informant along with the picture of the un- der-construction house. 4. Later on, it was found that the money sanctioned against the said house was credited in the name of the father of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an elected Ward Member and no offence under Section 409 of the Indian Pe- nal Code has been committed. He also submits that even if money has been wrongly credited to the father of the petitioner, the same has been done by the District Administration as well as the Bank Authority. 6. He also submits that considering the long detention of the petitioner be- hind the bars, he may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. R. J. Barua, has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner be- ing a public servant, Section 409 of Indian Penal Code is attracted against him and there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner. However, he fairly submits that the investigation has been fairly progressed. Page No.# 3/3 8. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for both sides. 9. Though, there are some incriminating materials against the present peti- tioner in the case diary, however, considering the period of detention al- ready undergone by the petitioner (62 days) as well as fair progress of the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that the further custodial interro- gation of the petitioner may not be necessary, if he cooperates in the in- vestigation. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the above named petitioner is al- lowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Mag- istrate, Goalpara with the following conditions: i. That the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. ii. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any induce- ment, 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 of the case before the Investigating Officer. 11. With the above observation, this bail application is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant