Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010131942024 2025:GAU-AS:644 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1690/2024 RANJAN SAIKIA S/O AMULYA SAIKIA R/O KATABARI GAON P.O. AND P.S. DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A KHANIKAR, R L CHUTIA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. Apprehending arrest in connection with Dhakuakhana P.S. Case No. 24/2024, under Sections 406/420 of the IPC, this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is preferred by applicant namely, Ranjan Saikia for grant of pre-arrest bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the said case has been registered on the Page No.# 2/3 basis of one F.I.R lodged by one Tikendra Boruah, on 04.04.2024. The essence of allegations in the F.I.R. against the applicant is that he had opened an office room of Technogym in a rented room of Sri Dulen Tamuli, at Amulapatty, Dhakuakhana, w.e.f. 01.01.2023, and he had appointed one Papu Borah; Bitisha Gogoi; Momi Handique; and Aparupa Chutia as his employee to motivate public to invest money, with monthly pay @ Rs. 9,000/-. But, after collecting huge money from public through online mobile Technogym App, suddenly he closed his office and also closed the said App and thereby, cheated a huge money of public. 4. Mr. Khanikar, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this court was pleased to grant interim protection to the applicant, vide order dated 28.06.2024, and pursuant to the said order, the applicant had appeared before the I.O. and cooperating with the investigating agency and therefore, it is contended to make the interim order dated 28.06.2024, absolute in the same terms and conditions. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by producing the case diary before this court, submits that the I.O. has examined some witnesses and that the investigation is still going on. However, Mr. Goswami submits that the applicant had appeared before the I.O. and cooperating with the investigating agency. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the fact that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigating agency and also that of the progress of investigation, this court is of Page No.# 3/3 the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant seems to be unwarranted here in this case. And therefore, this court is inclined to make the interim order dated 28.06.2024, absolute in the same terms and condition. 8. In terms of above this A.B. stands disposed of. 9. The case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant