Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010135112025 2025:GAU-AS:9120 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2036/2025 SRI MINTU DEKA VILL BAREGAON, PO KORORA, PS BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, YUVRAJ KASHYAP,MR. P GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 15.07.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant Page No.# 2/4 of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 507/2025, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(2)/336(3)/340(2) of the BNS, 2023. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is in custody since 14.06.2025 and thus, the I.O. got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him keeping him in custody. Further he submitted that after the arrest of the present petitioner, he got suspended from his service and hence, at present, he does not have any access to the Office for any manipulation or hampering or tampering with any documents or evidence at this stage. The investigation is also sufficiently progressed and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present accused/petitioner may not be required for the interest of the investigation. However, the accused/petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of bail. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials collected by the I.O. during investigation. Further he submitted that from the materials available in the Case Diary, it reveals that the present petitioner gave appointment letters to the complainant and several other candidates assuring them that they will be appointed in several contractual posts in Assam Secretariat in lieu of certain amount of money. On getting such kind of assurance, several candidates approached the present petitioner and accordingly he even conducted Page No.# 3/4 examination and provided some question papers to the candidates and thereafter he also issued some fake appointment letters to the candidates and thus he cheated and misappropriated huge amount of money from the candidates. He also fraudulently prepared several fake appointment letters in favour of the candidates in spite of the fact that he is a government employee and working as a Stenographer in the Assam Legislative Assembly. Mr. Sharma further submitted that taking the advantage of his position, the petitioner manipulated and convinced various candidates/individuals providing them with some fake appointment letters with forged stamp and signature. He further submitted that several other culprits may also be involved in the alleged offence and the investigation is still under process and hence, the release of the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage may hamper or tamper with further investigation of this case. Accordingly, Mr. Sharma raised vehement objection in granting bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and also on perusal of the Case Diary and the Note of the I.O. as well as the statement made by the accused persons and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, it is seen that the accused/petitioner has committed serious offence whereby he cheated and misappropriated huge amount of money from several individuals with an assurance of providing job in the Assam Secretariat and even provided some fake appointment letters by conducting examination, he even being a government employee in the State Assembly. Thus, considering the nature of allegation brought against the present petitioner and also considering the incriminating materials available in the Case Diary, this Court is of the opinion that it is not at all a fit case to grant Page No.# 4/4 bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage and hence, the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. Case Diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant