Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010121152025 2025:GAU-AS:8417 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1288/2025 AKBAR KHAN S/O ASHRAF KHAN RESIDENT OF BYE LANE NO.09, SIBNAGAR, PANIGAON, NEAR KENDRIA VIDYALAYA, NAGAON,PIN-782003 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MOTIUR RAHMAN, MR. O ULLAH,MR. A S TAPADER Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 23.06.2025 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. Rohman for the petitioner Akbar Khan who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 with prayer for pre-arrest bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Nagaon P.S. Case No. 200/2025 under Sections 61(2)/316(5)/318(4) of the BNS. Page No.# 2/3 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. P. Goswami for the respondent State. 3. The FIR unfolds that the petitioner has duped the bank by submitting false pictures of houses of borrowers instead of actual pictures of the house. He has further duped the bank as well as the borrowers of the bank by taking money in the guise of making deposits in their loan account but the money was never deposited in their loan account and was misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner is at present an ex-bank employee and he was holding the post of Sales Relationship Manager at Guwahati branch since 11.01.2024 and he finally resigned on 14.11.2024. While obtaining the loan of a borrower Akbar Khan, the petitioner uploaded the house of a neighbour to facilitate the loan of an MG Hector vehicle for an amount of Rs. 17,65,278/-. The petitioner in connivance with the dealer of GMDS Motors Pvt Ltd, Nagaon has procured a loan of Rs.21,91,800/-. Similarly he has procured higher amount by displaying higher model of vehicles for other borrowers as well, in connivance with the dealer. During his tenure, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,26,625/- from various borrowers and the bank managed to recover an amount of Rs. 80,200/- from the petitioner and the balance of Rs.1,46,425/- is yet to be recovered. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is not the sanctioning officer and he has no authority to sanction the loan which clearly implies that the sections under which the petitioner is booked are not attracted. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating the copy of the order of bail of another case which has been pending against the petitioner is not annexed along with this petition as is required by law. Page No.# 3/3 6. There are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner who is working in tandem with the dealer of the showroom as mentioned above. The petitioner was successful in defrauding the bank. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a sanctioning officer cannot be accepted. It is submitted that the loans are sanctioned according to the quotation placed before the sanctioning authority and the petitioner was deeply involved in procuring the sanction order. 8. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. The petitioner is a history sheeter and is thus at this juncture, not entitled to pre-arrest bail. It is clear that investigation may be adversely affected if the petitioner is insulated by an order of pre-arrest bail. 9. I have also considered the gravity and the extent to which the funds have been siphoned off in the garb of obtaining car loans. 10. At this juncture, this Court is hesitant to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 11. Petition stands rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant