Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010155812025 2025:GAU-AS:10066 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2294/2025 SHRI DHIRAJ KALITA S/O- JAY KANTA KALITA. R/O- VILL.- PATANI, P.S.- HAJO, DIST.- KAMRUP (ASSAM) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N BARMAN, K BORO,MS J BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. N. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita(BNSS), 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Dhiraj Kalita, who has been detained behind the bars since 06.06.2025 (for the last 59 days), in connection with Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025, under Sections 316(5)/3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 66C/66D of IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 16.05.2025, one Sri Pranab Bayan had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge of Mushalpur police station, naming 3(three) accused persons therein, inter alia, alleging that the accused No. 1 named in the FIR (Sri Kankan Das) had introduced himself to the informant as a bank employee and had opened a current account in the name of the informant and assured him to produce a business loan. 4. It is also alleged in the FIR that the accused No. 1 called the accused No. 3, namely, Sri Mrinmoy Kalita and introduced him to the informant as an employee of Bandhan Bank and thereafter, took the important personal documents of the informant like PAN Card, Voter ID Card, Aadhaar Card, Trade license, RTR files, passport and signatures of the informant in various forms and blank papers and opened one current account in the name of the informant, i.e. A.C. No. 20100035179415 and assured him to provide a business loan. 5. It is stated in the FIR that the informant had not done any transactions in the aforesaid current account, however, on 13.05.2025, when he went to the Bandhan Bank, Nalbari Branch, and got the bank statements, he found that his account has been used for transaction of huge amount of money without his information by some unknown Page No.# 3/4 persons. 6. It is also stated in the FIR that no Notification regarding the said transaction was received by the informant in his mobile phone as some other mobile phone and email IDs were attached to the account of the informant which were not given to the bank by the informant. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons named therein had misused the current account of the informant for illegal transactions and thus, committed criminal breach of trust and have cheated him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. He has been named by the arrested accused persons in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars since 06.06.2025 and the offences involved in this case entails maximum punishment which may extend up to ten years. Hence, he submits that considering the period of detention, the petitioner may be allowed to go on bail. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary and the investigation is still going on. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which has been produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. On perusal of the Case Diary, it appears that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present petitioner in the Case Diary Page No.# 4/4 and the investigation is at a crucial stage. 11. It also appears that one of the offence involved in this case is under Section 316 (5) of BNS, 2023 which entails maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Therefore, the maximum statutory period of detention in this case would be 90 days. 12. It also appears that the account of the informant and four other account holders were used as mule account which is suspected to be used for commission of cyber crime involving huge transaction of money. 13. Considering the above facts, this Court is reluctant to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage of the investigation as his release at this stage may hamper the investigation. 14. The prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is, therefore, rejected. 15. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant