Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010150012025 2025:GAU-AS:9581 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2206/2025 RINA BRAHMA W/O LATE JAYANTA DAS R/O VILL- FAKIRAGRAM NEAR RAILWAY STATION, WARD NO. 5, P.S. FAKIRAGRAM DIST. KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHOWDHURY, MS F RAHMAN,MR. M. ALOM,MR. S R ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Mrs. Rina Brahma, who has been detained behind the bars since 17.06.2025 (for the last 38 days)in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 04/2025, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 10.02.2025, one Bhaskar Jyoti Sarmah had lodged an FIR before the Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department (CID), inter alia, alleging that certain miscreants are circulating a fake letter with forged signatures of the first informant to various divisions under the Water Resources Department. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in no way involved in the offence alleged in this case and she has been languishing behind the bars for the last 38 days. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also remanded to police custody for 3(three) days beyond which no police remand was sought for. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that though the maximum punishment prescribed by law for the offences involved in this case is 7 years only, however, before her arrest no notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023 was given to her. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation and considering her detention, she may be allowed to go on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has Page No.# 3/4 vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had collected money on the pretext of giving job of Muster Roll/Work Charged employees to prospective candidates. 8. He submits that the money collected by the present petitioner is in the tune of more than Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs only). 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also submitted that 5(five) numbers of witnesses whose statement were recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023 have made categorical statement implicating the present petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. 10. He further submits that the investigation is still going on and there are several accused persons involved in this case. He, therefore, prays for rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 12. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner therein in the Case Diary. Moreover, the investigation is at a very crucial stage, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that considering the incriminating materials available against the petitioner as well as the stage of the investigation, the petitioner, who appears to have an active role in the offence alleged in the FIR is not entitled to get bail at this stage of the investigation. Page No.# 4/4 13. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. 14. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant