Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010140792025 2025:GAU-AS:10805 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1469/2025 MD SAIFUL ISLAM SON OF MUSLIM ALI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUMOLIA, P.O. PANIBHARAL, P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI DIST. BISWANATH, ASSAM PIN- 784176 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B BURAGOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 13.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/4 Also heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Md. Saiful Islam, seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with Biswanath Chariali P.S Case No.105/2025 under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(2)/318(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case arose out of an ejahar dated 23.05.2025. 4. From perusal of the ejahar, I find that the informant has alleged that large illegal money transaction networks operating in various parts of Assam with one center at Biswanath and upon getting an information, an operation was conducted during which from one “Asomi Hotel”, 3(three) persons were apprehended and one fled away. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail is not named in the ejahar and that the apprehended persons have been released on bail and the other person mentioned to have fled away has also got anticipatory bail from this Court. 6. The case diary has been received which reveals that extensive investigation so far. 7. The I.O has also filed detailed bail objection and strongly opposed to the grant of bail at this stage. 8. On the basis of case diary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the materials also indicate that Page No.# 3/4 the petitioner is one of the key persons involved in the entire racket indulging in financial crimes, which also has a cyber dimension. 9. I have perused the relevant portions of the bail objection and the contentions of the I.O regarding the requirement of the custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner. 10. It also appears that subsequently, during investigation Sections 43/66/66C/66D of the Information Technology Act have been added. The alleged offences are of extremely serious nature. These kinds of offences are not only financial crimes but also having a cyber dimension which makes them extremely dangerous for society. Through these kinds of crimes, innocent people can be looted of their hard earned money, taking advantage of some advances in technology today. 11. The investigation into these kinds of offences is also complex and challenging and it would be unrealistic to expect the names of all the accused persons would be enlisted in the ejahar itself. 12. Considering the entire circumstances, the requirement of custodial interrogation cannot be ruled out at all. In fact, the I.O has strongly contended the same would be necessary for not only the present accused but generally also. 13. Consequently, I hold that it would not be justified to grant anticipatory bail to the present petitioner at this stage and accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition stands rejected. 14. Return back the case diary. Page No.# 4/4 15. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant