Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010140962025 2025:GAU-AS:9840 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2115/2025 KULDIP DEKA S/O- LATE HARESWAR DEKA. VILL.- DAHACHUBURI, P.O.- CHAMUAPARA, P.S.- MANGALDOI, DIST.- DARRANG, PIN-784125 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H LASKAR, R BORAH,M RAHOMAN,J MEDHI,MR. R. KARIM,MR. P DAIMARY,MR. P K DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 30.07.2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Dhekiajuli P.S. Case No. 163/2025, under Sections 315(5)/318/314/3(5) of BNS. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. However, coming to know about the misappropriation and missing of gold from Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., the petitioner himself voluntarily cooperated in the audit proceedings, during which his name has been entangled in the present case. Mr. Dutta further submitted that the present accused/petitioner has been in custody for the last 44 days, including 3 (three) days of police remand. However, from the order passed by the learned Trial Court below, it reveals that after 3 (three) days of police remand, no further prayer for custodial remand was made by the I.O. He further submitted that there is sufficient progress in the investigation and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required for the Page No.# 3/5 purpose of investigation. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, citing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, further submitted that the provisions of CrPC confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to the accused pending trial or in appeal against great care and caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. He further submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that bail is a rule and jail is exception. Further he submitted that a person may be put into the jail pending trial only to secure their attendance at the time of trial or at the time of investigation. But, here in the instant case, the present petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered and appeared before the Audit Committee and also co-operated in the audit proceeding and thus, there is no probability of absconding of the present petitioner who himself appeared before the Audit Committee and is still ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case. 6. Mr. Bothakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that during the audit of the Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., 7 (seven) packets of gold were allegedly found missing from the vault/store room and 12 (twelve) packets were found to be tampered or replaced with some fake/fancy jewellery items. The present petitioner, being the custodian of the vault area of the said Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., had access to the vault area and without any damage of the vault area or the locker, the gold were missing. Thus, he submitted that the present petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence and there was a huge transaction of money between the parties. He further Page No.# 4/5 submitted that 7 (seven) packets of gold were already recovered from the possession of one of the co-accused, namely, Riya Paul, and 6 (six) packets from the office of the said finance company, IIFL. However, the other packets are yet to be recovered and one of the co-accused, which is also considered to be one of the prime accused of the case, Moon Ahmed, is still absconding and hence, considering all these aspects of the case and gravity of the offence and the stage of the investigation, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required for the investigation and accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to allow the accused/petitioner to go on bail at this stage. 7. 7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and on perusal of the case record as well as the Case Diary, it reveals that the present accused/petitioner was serving as the Assistant Branch Head of the said financial company, i.e. Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. of Dhekiajuli Branch, and during his tenure, it revealed from the audit that total 19 (nineteen) packets of gold were either missing or tampered with, i.e. 7 (seven) packets of gold were found missing from the vault and 12 (twelve) other packets were tampered and replaced with fake/fancy jewellery items. Further, on examination of CCTV footage by the Investigating Officer, it also reveals that the present accused/petitioner was seen taking out 2 (two) packets of gold from the vault room and concealing the same in his pant the pockets. It also reveals that as per the SOP of the said Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., the access to the vault was regulated through lock and key and digital password systems and any unauthorized access would trigger an alarm system, which is to be informed immediately to the Branch Head. However, no such alarm was reported which clearly indicates that the offence was committed in connivance with the then Page No.# 5/5 Branch Head, Moon Ahmed, who is currently absconding. The investigation also reveals significant financial transactions between the petitioner and the said co- accused. 8. It is a settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. However, the seriousness and gravity of the offence are also relevant considerations while deciding a bail application. In the present case, the materials on record prima facie disclose that the accused/petitioner, in connivance with other co-accused persons, not only defrauded the financial institution but also betrayed the trust of the general public who had deposited their gold with the said company. 9. In view of the above discussions and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the manner in which the public trust was breached and the role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence and further considering the fact that investigation is still under progress, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be necessary to unearth some more facts of the case and also to nabbed some other culprits who are also involved in the present case and therefore, I do 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. 10. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 11. Case Diary be send back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant