Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010139822025 2025:GAU-AS:9735 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2083/2025 SANOWAR HUSSAIN SON OF LT ABDUL LATIF, R/O VILL AND P.O. NALIGAON P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, R KHA,MR. S M RAHMAN,MS. P AHMED,MR. M I HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 29.07.2025 Heard Mr. H. R. A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 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/petitioner, who has 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. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. He is a businessman by profession and in order to further improve his financial company, he applied for a license before the RTMT Credit Service Ltd. and in that regard, he also paid Rs. 2,00,000/-. But, as the license could not be provided to him, the said money was returned to him through the account of said RTMT Company and for which his name had been entangled in this case and subsequently got arrested in connection with this case. He was earlier remanded for 2 (two) days police custody and thereafter there was no prayer for any custodial interrogation by the I.O. in connection with this case. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel, further submitted that the present Page No.# 3/5 petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2025 and till date, he has been in custody for last 46 days. The police had already collected all the relevant documents and materials and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required for the interest of investigation. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of the case if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that while arresting the present petitioner, 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/petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence and the Case Diary reveals sufficient incriminating materials against him. He further submitted that the present petitioner, 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 co-accused persons, namely, Ruhul Amin & Shahinur Khatun, were the Directors Page No.# 4/5 of the said RTMT Company and they, along with the present petitioner, are very much involved in the alleged offence. He also submitted that another co- accused person, namely, Shahidul Islam, introduced the accused- Ruhul Amin 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 petitioner 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/petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 considering the gravity of the offence and the materials so far collected by the I.O., I find that Page No.# 5/5 further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required to unearth some more facts of the case. 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. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/ petitioner at this stage and accordingly, the same stands rejected. 9. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 10. Case Diary be send back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant