Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15307 (GAU)

RIYA PAUL v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Bail Appln./2151/2025 · 2025-07-29

Mitali Thakuria

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

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./2151/2025 RIYA PAUL D/O LT DIJENDRA PAUL R/O VILL- WARD NO. 10 SHANTIPARA P.O. AND P.S. DHEKIAJULI DIUST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784110 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR Z ALAM Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 30.07.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Alam, 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. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and she has not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. The petitioner is also not the employee under the Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., but an employee of another finance company, namely, IIFL. She, being the employee of said IIFL, received some packets of gold from the co-accused Moon Ahmed, who stated that the same were purchased from an auction as being Non-Performing Assets (NPA). Hence, the present petitioner, relying upon such representation, deposited some of the packets with IIFL and also disbursed loans to certain customers. But, subsequently, she came to know that those gold were misappropriated from the Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. and during investigation, 7 (seven) packets of gold were recovered from her possession, as per the Seizure List, and 6 (six) numbers of packets are still laying at the office of IIFL. Mr. Alam further Page No.# 3/5 submitted that the present petitioner had already extended her full cooperation in the investigation of this case and the I.O. also got sufficient opportunity to interrogate her keeping her in custody. The present petitioner is a lady and till date, she had already completed 41 days in custody and hence, her further custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation. However, she is ready and willing to extend her co-operation in further investigation of this case if she is provided with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner and from the Case Diary, it reveals that after obtaining the gold from the Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd., she obtained gold loan in the name of her husband and thus, she is also involved in misappropriating the gold which are missing from the said Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. He further submitted that as per the allegation, 19 (nineteen) packets of gold were either missing or replaced with fake or fancy jewellery items and all the gold packets are yet to be recovered, which are alleged to have been misappropriated from Asirvad Micro Finance Ltd. He further submitted that there was a huge transaction of money between the present petitioner and other 2 (two) co-accused persons and considering the nature and gravity of the offence, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation. He accordingly raised objection and submitted that it may not be a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 6. 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 had admitted/confessed before the Investigating Page No.# 4/5 Officer during investigation that she received some gold loan customers from one of the co-accused, Moon Ahmed, in her company, i.e. IIFL, and also received several packets of gold from him on multiple occasions on the pretext that the gold have been acquired through auction of NPA accounts. However, without any verification, she accepted those gold packets from one of the co- accused, Moon Ahmed, who was the Manager of the said financial company, and kept the said packets in her matrimonial house and some at her company, i.e. IIFL. Further, it reveals from the Case Diary that the present petitioner also availed gold loan using one of the gold packets which she received from one of the co-accused. Thus, it is seen that the petitioner received the gold packets from one of the co-accused with every knowledge about the misappropriation of the said gold packets from the other finance company and therefore, her involvement in the present case cannot be denied. 7. 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 Page No.# 5/5 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