Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010126872025 2025:GAU-AS:9660 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1333/2025 SMTI. KALYANI ROY W/O- DHARMESWAR ROY. PERMANENT R/O-DHARAPUR CHARI ALI. P.O- DHARAPUR. P.S.- AZARA, GUWAHATI-781014. DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT- KAHILIPARA, UTTARAYAN VILLA, FLAT NO.8- B, TOWER NO.5-B, GUWAHATI-781019. DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 25.07.2025 Heard Mr. N. J. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application, filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been preferred by Ms. Kalyani Roy on behalf of her husband/accused, Dharmeshwar Roy, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Latasil P.S. Case No. 54/2025, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 5789/2025, under Sections 61(2)(a)/318(4) of BNS read with Section 111(2) of BNS. 3. The Case diary as called for, has already been received and I have perused the same. 4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petition’s husband namely Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy, who is apprehending arrest in connection with the instant case. He further submits that the accused is currently detained in connection with Baishnab Nagar P.S. Case No. 658/2025 and is presently in custody at Malda, West Bengal for which he could not appear before the IO to record his statement, though he was granted the privilege of interim pre-arrest bail on 12.06.2025. 5. He further submitted that there was an agreement for the sale of an old car belonging to the informant, which was executed on 28.05.2025 between the informant and the accused. Under this agreement, the informant agreed to sell his old Ciaz car for a total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), Page No.# 3/6 which was duly paid in full by the accused. Thereafter, the vehicle, along with all related documents, was handed over to the accused, i.e., the petitioner’s husband. It is further contended that the instant FIR has been lodged with false and concocted allegations, merely to harass the accused, who has no involvement in any alleged wrongdoing. Moreover, while granting interim pre- arrest bail on 12.06.2025, this Court observed in paragraph-13 of the order that, prima facie, the dispute between the parties appears to be predominantly civil in nature. He further submits that, upon receiving the release order in the case in which he is currently in custody, the accused will appear before the IO and extend full cooperation in the further investigation of this case, if the interim pre-arrest bail order is extended. 6. Mr. Dutta, further submitted that the maintainability of the present petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., the wife of the accused, has already been considered and discussed in the order dated 12.06.2025, and the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhanraj Aswini vs. Amar S. Mulchandani, reported in 2024 INSC 669, has also been taken into account. 7. In response, Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that prima facie it appears from the FIR and other materials that this is a civil dispute arising out of an agreement for sale, wherein the accused had allegedly purchased the vehicle for Rs. 5 lakhs. However, upon perusal of the case record, it is revealed that the modus operandi of the accused, namely Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy, involves entering into agreements for sale but taking possession of vehicles without making any payment. He further submitted that the accused, under the pretext of providing vehicles on rent, misappropriated the money and used to sale the vehicle in a fraudulent manner, and his wife, i.e., the present petitioner is also involved in such illegal activities. Page No.# 4/6 8. The prosecution contends that several other individuals have been similarly defrauded by the accused using the same method. At present, 11 cases are pending against the accused in the State of Assam, and he is currently detained in West Bengal in connection with the aforementioned case. Given the conduct of the accused and the materials on record, the IO had prayed for, and was allowed, to add Section 111(2) of BNS, which pertains to organized crime. 9. Furthermore, Mr. Borthakur referred to Section 479(2) of BNSS submits that an individual against whom multiple cases are pending cannot be granted bail. Accordingly, he submitted that this is not a fit case to extent the interim pre-arrest bail, considering the gravity and nature of the offence and there is need for custodial interrogation for a just and proper investigation. 10. In this regard, Mr. Dutta argued that Section 479(2) of the BNSS, as raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is not applicable in the present case, as the said provision is meant to apply only to under trial prisoners. 11. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have perused the case diary. It is seen that the petitioner’s husband/accused had produced a deed of agreement wherein an old Ciaz car was purchased by him for Rs. 5 lakhs, and as per the agreement, the entire amount was paid to the informant. From this aspect of the case, it appears that the dispute is civil in nature, on the basis of which the accused was also granted interim pre-arrest bail. 12. Upon perusal of the case diary, it is further seen that the accused has been involved in other cases, wherein the modus operandi was also similar. In these cases, the accused, under the pretext of hiring or purchasing cars, had executed agreements with other victims as well. In this regard, 11 cases are Page No.# 5/6 pending against the accused across Assam. Furthermore, from the Investigating Officer’s (IO) note, it has been revealed during the investigation that the accused, Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy, is involved in multiple fraudulent activities. The recovered documents and findings indicate that he is part of a well-organized operation involving identity theft, financial fraud, and vehicle- related crimes. 13. It is further revealed from the case diary that the IO has collected the bank statements of the accused, which show that several suspicious transactions were made from both the accused’s and the petitioner’s accounts. The case diary also reveals that the petitioner has been acting as a co- conspirator, and an amount of Rs. 1,03,14,607.20 (Rupees one crore three lakhs fourteen thousand six hundred seven and twenty paisa only) was found in her account without any legitimate source of income. Thus, the accused is found to be involved in similar offences and appears to be engaged in organized criminal activities. During the investigation, the IO also collected FIRs related to other cases filed against the accused. Consequently, the IO has raised objections to the accused’s prayer for extension of interim pre-arrest bail. 14. Considering the nature of the offence, custodial interrogation of the accused is essential. There exists a serious threat of tampering with witnesses, concealing assets, and manipulating key documents. The accused, Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy @ Jeetu, is an active fraudster operating across Assam, and he possesses both the means and the motive to obstruct the investigation by tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. 15. In light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence alleged, and the accused’s criminal antecedents, indicating his involvement in organized crime, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit Page No.# 6/6 case for granting the privilege of bail to the accused, namely Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy. Hence, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation is essential to unearth more facts related to the case. Accordingly, the prayer for extension of interim pre-arrest bail is hereby rejected. The order of interim pre-arrest bail granted on 12.06.2025 to the accused, namely Dharmeswar Roy @ Ajit Roy is hereby vacated. The present petition seeking for pre-arrest bail stands rejected. 16. In terms of above, this Bail Application stands disposed of. 17. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant