Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010107212025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1141/2025 SRI SANTANU KUMAR S/O- LATE NARENDRA PRASAD, R/O- BENGALI TOLI GOILIKERA BAZAR, GOILKERA , WEST SINGHBHUM , JHARKHAND, PIN-833103,INDIA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I C DEKA, MS P MAZUMDAR,S I AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 07.08.2025 Heard Mr. I. C. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam appearing for the State respondent. 2. This petition under Section 482 BNSS, is filed for granting the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, namely, Santanu Kumar apprehending their arrest in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 21/2019 registered u/s 419/420/468/471 of Cr.P.C. R/W Section Page No.# 2/3 66/66D of IT Act. 3. Complaint was lodged by the CMD of Purvashi Oil and Gas Limited located at Guwahati. The allegations leveled were that the company was duped by fraudster in the name of Bajaj Finance Services who projected that a commercial loan of Rs.1 crore would be sanctioned with regard to a startup project and in connection with the same they solicited transactions by way of payments by the company in their favor. One such transaction was amounted to Rs. 14,03,561/-. Later, the company discovered that all these activities were fraudulent and run by a racket involving the accused person. On the basis of the complaint, the Special Inspector Police CID submitted an enquiry report to the special SP,CID, Assam narrating in details the aspects of the allegations and the findings of the inquiry report which lend support to the allegations made in the original conflict. 4. Despite the elapse of several years, the investigation is still not completed. 5. Mr. I.C. Deka, learned counsel for the petition submits that the petitioner will cooperate with the investigation and also raises a contention of juvenility stating that he was 17 years at the time of the alleged offences. 6. The case diary reveals extensive investigation though it is still not complete despite the elapse of time. The IO has submitted a detailed bail objection narrating the findings of investigation so far which again implicates the present petitioner as well and lends support to the original complaint and the inquiry report. 7. With regard to the aspect of age, it is stated in the report that the Page No.# 3/3 Aadhar Card of the petitioner which was found, his date of birth is mentioned as 1.1.2000 which would make him about 19 years the time of the incident. 8. Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly objects to the grant of pre-arrest bail submitting that these are cyber crimes as well as organized crimes of a financial nature which would require extensive investigation, including perhaps custodial investigation as well. 9. With regard to the aspect of age, investigation revealed discrepancies regarding date of birth raising a cloud on the question of juvenility. It also transpires that pursuant to Section 41 Cr.P.C. the petitioner did not appear or submit his full documents regarding any plea of juvenility. 10. Under circumstances finding force in the contentions of the prosecution, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail stands rejected at this stage. 11. Return back the case diary. 12. It is desirable that despite the complex nature of the matter, the Investigating Authority shall endeavor to expeditiously complete the remaining investigation. 13. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant