Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010142572025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1545/2025 SOFIUR RAHMAN S/O KHOLILUL RAHMAN R/O PURA BANGLA, P.S. NUMOLIGARH, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAHU, A S CHOUDHURY,MR A W AMAN,MR SARFRAZ NAWAZ,MR N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER Date : 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, Mr. Sofiur Rahman, who is apprehending arrest in Page No.# 2/2 connection with Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 68/2025 registered under Section 316(2)/318(4) of BNS. 3. An FIR was lodged on 07.03.2025 against the petitioner along with 2 others by six number of informant alleging inter-alia that they had invested huge amount of money in "LUCRUM" company, vide beneficiary's A/C No. 923020034647529, Axis Bank, koochbihar Branch in the month of July, 2024, authorized by accused No. 1 (Mithun Das) from Tufanganj, Koochbihar West Bengal along with accused No. 3(Nitish Ranjan Das) Managing Director of the said company and the petitioner Accordingly, they were issued sovereign Gold Bond shown to be issued by the Govt. of India which were later on found to be fraud one. In order to invest of the money informant were asked to open a Demat A/c in ICICI Bank by installing the same in Mobile phone. Upon installation the bond issued to the informant were reflected in the mobile phone however, the same was not reflected in the ICIC direct. In fact, the balance in the demat A/C was shown a 0 (zero). It was further allegation of the informant that the amount invested by the informant have not been return to them and when the accused persons are approached, the accused persons started to avoid them. Under such allegations the FIR was lodged and registered under Section 316(2)/318(4) BNS. 4. On perusal of the case diary, there appears to be sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner pointing to his involvement in conducting the scam by the above named company and its officials, for which custodial interrogation may be required. 5. Although it is submitted that the petitioner himself has been a victim of the said fraud company wherein, the petitioner himself invested an amount of Rs.11 lakhs, there is no document furnished by the petitioner to support such claim. 6. Considering the above, the prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner stands rejected. 7. Anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant