Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010134892025 2025:GAU-AS:10063 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2049/2025 HASAN BASRI S/O- TAZIM UDDIN AHMED. VILL.- CHAMARIYA PAM, P.S.- BOKO DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PARAMANIK, MR. N J DUTTA,A. ISLAM,P. KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.08.2025 1. Heard Md. N.J. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/5 heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Hasan Basri, who has been detained behind the bars since 31.05.2025 (for the last 65 days), in connection with Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025, under Sections 316(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D of IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.05.2025, one Sri Pranab Bayan had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mushalpur police station, naming 3(three) accused persons therein, inter alia, alleging that the accused No. 1 named in the FIR (Sri Kankan Das) had introduced himself to the informant as a bank employee and had opened a current account in the name of the informant and assured him to produce a business loan. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that the accused No. 1 called the accused No. 3, namely, Sri Mrinmoy Kalita and introduced him to the informant as an employee of Bandhan Bank and thereafter, took the important personal documents of the informant like Pan Card, Voter ID Card, Aadhaar Card, Trade license, RTR files, passport and signatures of the informant in various forms and blank papers and opened one current account in the name of the informant, i.e. A.C. No. 20100035179415 and assured him to provide a business loan. 5. It is stated in the FIR that the informant had not done any Page No.# 3/5 transactions in the aforesaid current account, however, on 13.05.2025, when he went to the Bandhan Bank, Nalbari Branch, and got the bank statements, he found that his account has been used for transaction of huge amount of money without his information by some unknown persons. 6. It is also stated in the FIR that no Notification regarding the said transaction was received by the informant in his mobile phone as some other mobile phone and email IDs were attached to the account of the informant which were not given to the bank by the informant. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons named therein had misused the current account of the informant for illegal transactions and thus, committed criminal breach of trust and have cheated him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not an employee of any bank and he is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. 8. He submits that the petitioner neither took the documents of the informant nor he assured to provide any business loan to him. He also submits that the younger brother of the petitioner is the owner of a “Customer Service Provider” (CSP) centre at Mahatoli Bazar and the younger brother of the petitioner were not acquainted with the co- accused Kankan Das, who introduced him to the Branch Manager of the Bandhan Bank, Dhupdhara Branch. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence under Sections 316(5) of the BNS, 2023 is not attracted against Page No.# 4/5 him and considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail. 10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that in this case, the innocent customers of the bank were dupe by using their accounts as mule accounts for committing cyber crime and huge illegal transactions. He has produced the Case Diary of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025, and has submitted that there are sufficient incriminating materials and the investigation is pending at a very crucial stage. He also submits that if the petitioner is allowed to go on bail at this stage, it will hamper the investigation. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have perused the Case Diary of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025. 12. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary and the investigation is pending at a very crucial stage. 13. It also appears that the account of the informant and four other account holders were used as mule account which is suspected to be used for commission of cyber crime involving huge transaction of money. 14. Considering the above facts, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage of the investigation as his release at this stage may hamper the investigation. Page No.# 5/5 15. The prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 16. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant