Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146072025 2025:GAU-AS:9851 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2157/2025 DHARITRI KALITA D/O LT. RAMESH CH. KALITA R/O 268, BONGAIGAON TOWN, WARD NO. 5, P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783580 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A SHARMA, P BHOWMICK,N.R. SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 31-07-2025 Heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, Page No.# 2/4 the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with prayer for bail as the petitioner is behind bars since 14.06.2025 in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 24/2025 registered as G.R. Case No. 49/2025 u/s 120(B)/409/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Case Diary received. Perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and she is no way connected in the alleged offence. She joined in the service in the year 2017 as a Debt Recovery Agent and her role was only to connect person with Bank. That apart she has no role to collect money from the customers. However, she joined as a Business Correspondent Agent in the year 2022. But, from the FIR itself it is seen that the alleged misappropriation was there with the Bank from the year 2012. 5. Mr. Bhuyan submitted that as a Debt Recovery Agent she has the only role to connect the persons with the Bank and apart from that she has no other role. However, after joining as a B.C. Agent she only used to talk with the customers who can apply for loan before the Bank and it is the Bank who sanctioned the loan amount in favour of the customer only after the verification of the documents. She further submitted that the present accused/petitioner is in custody since last 46 days and she is a local resident of Bongaigaon and hence there is no chance of absconding. She will extend her cooperation in further investigation of this case. He also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 89 wherein the bail was considered even in a Page No.# 3/4 case of triple murder considering the fact that the accused was a lady. 6. Mr. Borthakur, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused-petitioner and she being a Debt Recovery Agent joined in the year 2017 and subsequent in the year 2022 she was appointed as a Business Correspondence Agent. From the available materials in the Case Diary it is seen that she along with some other Bank officials used to get the relevant documents from the customers and giving only minimum amount to the said customers she has misappropriated the entire loan amount. 7. Mr. Borthakur further submitted that there was a Scheme where the customers were provided free loan and for which she along with some other officials had collected some relevant documents from the customers and after sanctioning of the loan amount only the minimum amount was disbursed to those customers by misappropriating huge amount of money. During enquiry she also uttered 3/4 names of the bank officials but, did not provided the entire details of those officials and the investigation is still under process to nab the other culprits who may also be involved in the alleged offence. Mr. Borthakur accordingly submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner and the investigation is still under process. 8. Hearing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the materials available in the Case Diary it is seen that there are sufficient incrimination against the present petitioner. But, at the same time probability of involvement of other bank officials also who are yet to be apprehended by the Investigating Officer. From the Case Diary it is seen that there are sufficient progress in the investigation and the present petitioner is in custody since last 46 days and hence without going in other details of the case Page No.# 4/4 only considering the fact that she is in custody for more than 46 days, I find that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required. Accordingly, I find it is a fit case to grant the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the accused/petitioner is released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon. The accused/petitioner, namely Dharitri Kalita, be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon without prior permission. The Bail Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant