Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010139502025 2025:GAU-AS:10062 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2077/2025 KANKAN DAS ALIAS KANKAN MADAHI S/O PARAMA MADAHI R/O VILL- TARABARI, P.S. SIMLA DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM PRESENT ADDRESS- C/O HARIHAR SINGHA VILL- BAGAPARA, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BAJALI, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N K KALITA, MR D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.08.2025 1. Heard Md. N.K. Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/4 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, Kankan Das @ Kankan Madahi, 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is presently working as a business executive under HDFC Life Insurance & General Insurance Limited and does not have any criminal antecedents. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and is not involved in the offence alleged in the FIR. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since last 65(sixty-five) days out of which for 6(six) days, he was also in police custody. Page No.# 3/4 7. He submits that considering the period of detention, he may be allowed to go on bail, 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is having his ailing parents, his wife and a 4(four) year old child and he is the only earning member of the family. 9. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not an employee of Bandhan Bank and has no access to the operating system of the bank and therefore, he cannot alter any KYC credentials of any customer. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation and considering his period of detention, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary. 11. 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. 12. 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. Page No.# 4/4 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. The prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is therefore rejected. 17. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant