Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010095252025 2025:GAU-AS:13905 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1059/2025 RASIDUL RAHMAN S/O LATE FULBOX ALI R/O WARD NO. 11 P.S. DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. M MONDAL,A R MONDAL,MR. S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA O R D E R Date : 16.10.2025. Heard Mr. M. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing on behalf of the respondent State. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of pre- arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, namely, Rasidul Rahman who is apprehending arrest in connection with the Dhubri P.S. Case No. 92/2025, registered under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/61(2)(b) of the BNS, read with Section 21(1)/21(2)/21(3)/23/25 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The case diary is received and perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Mondal, learned counsel that the present accused petitioner is innocent and is not involved with the incident as alleged against him in the FIR. However, it is a fact that he was one of the salaried person of the said company i.e. the Support India Development Programme and after an accident, he had to resign from the Company and had not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. Further, after obtaining the interim order, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and statement has already been recorded by the I.O. under Section 183 of the BNSS. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to extend her cooperation in further investigation of the case, if he is granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. D.P. Goswami, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam submitted that the accused petitioner appeared before the I.O. and cooperating with the investigation of the case. But from the case diary it is revealed that he is not a salaried person as stated but one of the partner of the company and initially some gift item etc. were also distributed to the beneficiaries but subsequently, Page No.# 3/3 there was a raid by police and the company was closed. After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides, perusal of the record and the materials available in the case diary and other aspects of the case, I find that custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may not be necessary for the interest of investigation. Accordingly, the interim order passed on 14.05.2025 is made absolute with same terms and conditions. The bail petition stands disposed of. Return back the case diary forthwith. JUDGE Comparing Assistant