Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010139822025 2025:GAU-AS:9735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2060/2025 NAZRUL ISLAM AND ANR. SON OF MD. SOHRAB ALI R/O NADIAPARA P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM 2: RUHUL AMIN SON OF MD. SOHRAB ALI R/O NALDIAPARA P.S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. A CHAUDHURY Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29.07.2025 Heard Mr. A. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 360/2025, under Sections 316(3)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the present accused/petitioners are innocent and they are no way connected in the alleged offence. Both the accused/petitioners are brothers in relation and they are engaging themselves with a company, namely, RTMT Credit Services Ltd., and the accused/petitioner No. 2 is presently holding the post of Director of the said company and they have not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. However, the present petitioner No. 1 got arrested in connection with this case on 04.06.2025 and the petitioner No. 2 got arrested on 13.06.2025 and till date, they have been in custody for last 56 days & 47 days, respectively. They were earlier remanded for 3 (three) days police custody and thereafter there was no prayer for any custodial interrogation by the I.O. in connection with this case. Mr. Chaudhury further submitted that the police had Page No.# 3/6 already collected all the relevant documents and materials and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may not be required for the interest of investigation. However, the petitioners are ready and willing to co- operate the I.O. in further investigation of the case if they are granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that while arresting the present petitioners, there was no compliance of Section 35(3) of BNSS, which is mandatorily required to be followed as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He further submitted that the explanation which has been made by the I.O. in the Forwarding Report is not at all sufficient to dispense with the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. In that context, he also submitted that this Court had already passed orders to that regard wherein it was observed that the compliance of Section 35(3) of BNSS is necessary before making any arrest of an accused person. 6. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioners are also involved in the alleged offence and the Case Diary reveals sufficient incriminating materials against them. He further submitted that the present petitioners, in conspiracy with the other accused persons, created E-Mandate Account and thereby they used to transfer the money even without generating OTP. Further he submitted that all the accused persons fraudulently transferred more than Rs. 3.28 Crores from the account of one deceased person, namely, Pradip Tibrewal. He further submitted that the present petitioner No. 2, namely, Ruhul Amin, and one Shahinur Khatun, was the Directors of the said RTMT Company and they, along with other Page No.# 4/6 accused persons, are very much involved in the alleged offence. He also submitted that another co-accused person, namely, Shahidul Islam, introduced the present petitioner No. 2 to accused- Sonowar Hussain and thereafter they all created the E-Mandate Account and transferred the entire aforesaid amount to the account of the said RTMT Company. Mr. Sarma further submitted that from the order passed by the learned Court below, it reveals that around more than Rs. 2.83 Crores had already been seized from the account of the said RTMT Company and the same was given zimma to the complainant. But till date, more than Rs. 40 Lakhs are yet to be recovered and some of the accused persons, who are also involved in the alleged offence, are still absconding and yet to be nabbed in connection with this case. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submitted that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioners may be required for the interest of investigation and hence, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he raised objection in allowing the accused/petitioners on bail at this stage. 7. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further submitted that although the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was not issued to the petitioners, there is a Check List and it is specifically mentioned by the I.O. in Forwarding Report as to why the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was dispensed with. He further submitted that in each and every case, there may not be any requirement of providing the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS especially in the case of like nature. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Record and the Case Diary and it is seen that the Page No.# 5/6 I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioners and considering the gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner No. 2 at this stage. More so, the explanation made by the I.O. for not providing the Notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS also appears plausible at this stage as the probability of absconding of the accused persons cannot be denied considering the nature and gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the prayer for bail for the accused/petitioner No. 2 is rejected at this stage. 9. However, considering the length of detention already undergone by the accused/petitioner No. 1 and also considering the fact that there is no probability of filing the charge-sheet within 4-5 days by the I.O. as the matter is still under investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner. 10. Accordingly, it is provided that on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only with 1 (one) surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, the accused/petitioner No. 1, namely, Md. Nazrul Islam, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner No. 1 shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner No. 1 shall not, directly or indirectly, make any Page No.# 6/6 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner No. 1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur, Tezpur, without prior permission. 11. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 12. Case Diary be send back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant