Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010142352025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1518/2025 ANKUR DEKA S/O- BIREN DEKA. R/O- 2 NO., NAOHOLIA, DULIAJAN, P.O. AND P.S.- DULIAJAN, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-787055 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P BOIRAGI, MR G G GOGOI,MRS. B TALUKDAR,MR. S J SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 11.08.2025 Heard Mr. P. Boiragi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Page No.# 2/3 Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner, namely, Ankur Deka, has prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Duliajan P.S. Case No. 64/2025, registered under Section 3(5)/316(2)/316(5)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. The case arose out of an Ejahar dated 03.04.2025 alleged by the Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Indian Overseas Bank that the bank officials of Indian overseas Bank, Duliajan Branch, in collusion with some borrowers for sanctioned fraud loans and fraudulently disbursed the same to 54 numbers of accounts, causing loss to the bank. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner whose name mentioned in the Ejahar is one of the persons out of those eight persons allegedly involved in collusion with bank officials. It is also submitted the main accused has already enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has produced the case diary and submits that the investigation has revealed that the present petitioner has taken a loan more than of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of a firm namely, D.K. Store which actually belongs to Pradip kumar Sah rather than to name of Ankur Deka/petitioner. It is also submitted that it is not a fit case to grant pre-arrrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the case diary. 7. Considered the materials available in the case diary as well as the nature of offence, I am of the considered view that requirement of custodial interrogation at this stage of investigation cannot be ruled out altogether. The alleged offences are of serious nature and the material revealed about of prima Page No.# 3/3 facie and support to the allegations about the financial fraud. 8. Under such circumstances, the pre-arrest bail stands rejected at this stage and disposed of accordingly. 9. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant