Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010144422025 2025:GAU-AS:12712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1535/2025 GOJANAND MUNDA @ GAJANAND MUNDRA AND ANR S/O LATE RAM DAYAL MUNDRA, R/O WARD NO. 6, HOUSE NO. 63, MANIRAM DEWAN PATH, TABIA BABU LANE JORHAT, P.O. JORHAT, P.S. JORHAT, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM 2: SRI NAND KISHOR MUNDRA S/O LATE RAM DAYAL MUNDRA R/O WARD NO. 6 HOUSE NO. 63 MANIRAM DEWAN PATH TABIA BABU LANE JORHAT P.O. JORHAT P.S. JORHAT DIST. JORHAT ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP.B Y THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D BARUAH, MR. T J MAHANTA,MS. P HANDIQUE,MR. P K BORDOLOI,MR A K AZAD Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. A M BORA(INFORMANT),MR. V A CHOWDHURY(INFORMANT),MR. M S HUSSAIN(INFORMANT),MR. D GAGAI(INFORMANT),A GOGOI (INFORMANT),A K GOGOI(INFORMANT) Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 16.09.2025 Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Barthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1 and Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the informant/respondent No. 2. 2. By this petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioners, namely, Gajanand Munda @ Gajanand Mundra and Nand Kishor Mundra, haves prayed for granting pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Jorhat P.S. Case No. 308/2025, under Section 308(5) of BNS, 2023. 3. The allegations against the petitioners arose out of an FIR dated 18-06- 2025 lodged by informant Rajesh Kumar Agarwala, who later got impleaded in the proceeding as respondent No. 2 and filed his affidavit. 4. The gist of the allegations in the aforesaid FIR is that the two accused petitioners named above blackmailed him with a pen drive purportedly containing his private and obscene videos and photos and that the same was shown to him on the eve of marriage of his daughter and pursuant thereof, as the informant became nervous, he was demanded with large amount of money and compelled to transfer Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh) to the accused petitioners from his HDFC bank to one RD Trading company, a firm supposedly in the name of the accused petitioners. Page No.# 3/7 5. It is also alleged that even thereafter, the harassment and threats have continued, as a result of which, the informant is extremely distressed and even contemplating taking his own life. Based on the FIR, the aforementioned police case was registered and investigation started. It is stated and submitted on behalf of the accused petitioners that they were tenants under the informant and that at some point of time, the petitioner as landlord stopped receiving money as a result of which they had to file a miscellaneous case before the Civil Court in Jorhat. That subsequently, the informant landlord served them a legal notice claiming an exorbitant amount of Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh). Copies of the purported tenancy agreement dated 01-08-2026 between the informant and petitioner Nand Kishore Mundra has been annexed, as also some treasury challan as well as legal notice dated 02-06-2025 purportedly sent by the informant to the petitioners demanding the money. 6. It is stated and submitted that pursuant to a tenancy dispute, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this criminal case by the respondent No.2 for which they are aggrieved and seeking anticipatory bail. On 10-07-2025, this Court was pleased to grant interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions, one of which was that they would appear before the I/O within 7 days. However, it appears that they failed to abide by that condition, for which the prosecution and the private respondent sought cancellation of their interim bail. 7. The petitioners filed an interlocutory application and connected pleadings supported by affidavit stating that when they were supposed to appear before the I/O, another criminal case came to be lodged upon them and therefore they could not appear and sought extension of the time for appearing, which was Page No.# 4/7 allowed by this court, giving them time to appear. 8. The voluminous case diary as called for has been received, which indicates extensive and significant investigation. The informant as respondent No. 2 has also filed his pleading on affidavit, pointing out that he has been a subject of extortion at a vulnerable time of his life when his daughter was getting married and upon being shown a pen drive purportedly containing some improper videos and photos of his which he could not comprehend. 9. The case of the prosecution and the informant is that upon such blackmail he was forced to part with a large amount of money constituting as much as Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh). The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/informant has drawn the attention of this court to various copies of bank documents indicating various entries pertaining to transactions and on the basis of these materials and the entries, has contended that these clearly indicate monetary transactions of different amounts into the accounts of the petitioner side culminating in illegal transfer of as much as Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh). It is contended that the money was shown to be transferred to one RD Trading, though that in reality it was a loan account and the petitioner side cleverly showed the transfer of money into such an account. In this context it may be mentioned herein that the petitioner side had contended that they took an unsecured loan of approximately Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh) from the informant. 10. The case diary has been accompanied by bail objection. In the detailed bail objection the investigating officer has strongly objected to the grant of bail. 11. It is contended by the investigating officer that apart from the accused Page No.# 5/7 petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail herein, two other persons namely Parvez Hussain and Riaz Hussain are also involved and acted as middlemen in the illegal monetary transactions. It is clearly stated by the I/O on the basis of investigation that the investigation has revealed that these persons are involved in alleged honey-trapping, blackmail and extortion of money from businessmen, including the present informant. It is stated that the CDR analysis of the alleged middlemen and the accused petitioners point to conspiracy and their being partners in crime in the alleged offenses. 12. The I/O has also stated that the accused petitioners and the other two middlemen are involved in similar activities with regard to other businessmen as well. The investigating officer in the bail objection has narrated details of several other police cases in support of his contention of criminal antecedents of the accused petitioners. Such particulars regarding alleged criminal antecedents of the accused petitioners also appear from the statement of the informant. 13. The statements of the informant and his wife were recorded before learned Judicial Magistrate at Jorhat during investigation. In her statement, the wife of the informant has clearly implicated the accused petitioners and even the two aforementioned middlemen and stated about how they blackmailed her husband and extorted money from him of as much as Rs. 47,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakh). The informant in his statement before learned Judicial Magistrate at Jorhat during investigation has also supported his allegations in the FIR, corroborated the statement of his wife and stated about how with the purported pen drive containing improper videos and photos of his, on the eve of his daughter’s marriage, blackmailed him and forced him to part with a large amount of money. Page No.# 6/7 14. The informant has also stated and indicated about transfers made to the account of RD Trading which was actually a loan account and therefore, the illegal transfers were camouflaged by the accused petitioners in furtherance of their crime. The investigation has progressed; however, it is not yet completed. Upon perusing the entire materials, I find that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the accused petitioners and also against the two persons who were purportedly acting as middlemen. 15. The nature of the allegations is very serious and if the materials revealed by the investigation are accepted as correct, then the emerged conduct of the petitioners and the purported middlemen are not only illegal and criminal, but are also socially and morally reprehensible. In a case of this nature the possibility of the investigating authority requiring custodial examination of the accused persons cannot be ruled out at all. Rather, in a case of this nature, with organized dimension of the alleged offenses and the supporting materials thereof – there is a high likelihood of the investigating officer requiring custodial examination of the accused persons for the purpose of effective and complete investigation. 16. Even though the accused petitioners were granted interim bail earlier but in the backdrop of the materials which have emerged, continuing the anticipatory bail can be detrimental to the investigation and therefore, the interim anticipatory bail is required to be vacated without any further delay. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion – the instant petition for anticipatory bail for the two petitioners stand rejected. Consequently, the interim anticipatory bail granted to them earlier by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2025 stands vacated. Page No.# 7/7 17. Return back the case diary along with a copy of this order to the investigating officer. 18. The bail petition stands dismissed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Comparing Assistant