Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010149332025 2025:GAU-AS:9972 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2190/2025 ANAND RASIWASIA SON OF SRI SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL R/O KANYA PATHSALA LANE, NEAR GS LOHIA GIRLS COLLEGE, TINSUKIA, P.O. AND P.S. TINSUKIA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE LEARNED PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N HASAN, MR. I K BURAGOHAIN,MR. A HASAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 01-08-2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Anand Rasiwasia, who has been Page No.# 2/4 detained behind the bars since 12.06.2025 in connection with Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 156/2020 under Sections 420/409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 corresponding to GR Case No. 253/2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 31.01.2020, one Monuj Chutia had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Tinsukia Police Station, inter- alia, alleging that the his land documents have been utilized by the Bank Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce for sanctioning a loan in the name of M/S B.S. Trading. The loan was of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). It is further alleged in the FIR that the informant and the present petitioner were shown as guarantors in the said loan and loan account has become a Non- Performing Asset and proceeding under the SARFAESI Act has been initiated in respect of the landed property of the informant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is himself a victim in this case as he also been made a guarantor in the loan sanctioned by the co-accused i.e. Amit Kumar Jha who was the Bank Manager when the loan was sanctioned. He further submits that the investigation at the first instance resulted into final report, however, the final report was not accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tinsukia and a fresh investigation was directed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was arrested from Meerut and was produced before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia on transit remand and since the date of arrest, he is behind the bars. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the meanwhile, the main accused namely Sri Amit Kumar Jha has been granted Page No.# 3/4 anticipatory bail by this Court. He also submits that as the main accused has been already granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner, who is ready to cooperate in the investigation and who has also been behind the bars for last 51 (Fifty One) days, may be allowed to go on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. B. Sarma has produced the Case Diary of Tinsukia Police Station Case No. 156/2020 and has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner. He submits that the present petitioner was the main conspirator in taking fake loan in connivance with the Bank Manager in the name of M/S B.S. Trading. He also submits that it was the petitioner only who initially gives assurance to the informant of the case that he will arrange him to get a loan from the bank. 7. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there are materials in the Case Diary to indicate that out of the loan amount, the present petitioner had given Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the co- accused namely the Bank Manager. He further submits that after sanctioning of loan the petitioner has fled away to Meerut and started doing business by changing his name to Shivam Agarwall. He also submits that there are materials in the Case Diary to indicate that the petitioner has also duped many other nationalized banks by taking loan in this manner. He submits that though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for last 51 days, his custodial interrogation is necessary considering the nature of this case and hence, he opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary of Tinsukia Police Station Case No. Page No.# 4/4 156/2020. Considering the incriminating materials available against the petitioner in the Case Diary, this Court is reluctant to grant him bail at this stage of investigation. The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage. 9. This Bail Application is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant