Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010150962025 2025:GAU-AS:9665 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2239/2025 MAHBUBUR RAHMAN S/O- HAKIM UDDIN. R/O- VILL. AND P.O.- BHATKUCHI, P.S.- BARPETA, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781314. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J A AHMED, MR. K M HASSAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Basistha P.S. Case No. 321/2025, under Sections 318(4)/338/313 of the BNS, 2023. Page No.# 2/3 Case Diary is available. Perused the same. It is submitted by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been arrested in this case only on suspicion and since last 48 days, he is behind the bars. Thus, the I.O. has got sufficient opportunity to interrogate him, keeping him in custody and as such, his further custodial interrogation may not be required. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner and on enquiry, it has come to light that the petitioner is a professionals thief and he is working in an organized manner and is actively involved in similar ATM Card swiping incidents. The modus operandi involved in fake ATM cards in the name of some suspected individuals where they formally targeted elderly persons in ATM booths and deceitfully engaging them in conversation, then swiping the victims original ATM card with a fake one. Mr. Borthakur, submitted that vide order dated 30.06.2025 on the prayer of the I.O. Sections 111(2)(b)/111(3)/111(4) of BNS has already been added against the present accused/petitioner. He further submitted that considering the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the length of detention, only the petitioner cannot be enlarge on bail. More so, it is submitted that there are other cases pending against the present petitioner involving similar kind of offences. He is a habitual offender and hence his custody may be required for further investigation of the case. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. I have also perused the case diary, wherefrom it is seen that the present accused petitioner is involved in similar offences and he is a habitual offender. It is seen that as per the enquiry report, they mainly target elderly persons in the ATM booths and in the name of swiping ATM cards, used to withdraw money from the account using those cards. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to grant the Page No.# 3/3 privilege of bail to the present petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner stands rejected. Return the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant