Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010165242025 2025:GAU-AS:12285 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1770/2025 SRI BABUL KUMAR S/O LATE ANANT KUMAR R/O VILL.-DHAKAPARA, P.O.-DHEKIPARA,P.S.- SIPAJHAR, DISTRICT-DARRANG, PIN- 784145, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. MASUM ALAM, MS D MAHANTA,MR B M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 09.09.2025 Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also Page No.# 2/4 heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, 1. Sri Babul Kumar, seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with CID P.S Case No. 1/2016 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471/409/406 of IPC. 3. The gist of allegation in the ejahar lodged by one Puja Bharadwaj, Manager, Canara Bank, Ulubari is with regard to fraudulent transaction in Bank accounts of customer and through another suspicious account at the behest of accused persons Jumi Das, her husband Ranjeeb Hazarika. The present petitioner is named as accused no.4 in the FIR and there is an allegation against all the named accused persons of indulging in fraudulent transactions. The present petitioner is stated to be an employee of M/s Maa Bagala Enterprise. He was earlier granted interim bail vide order dated 29.07.2025. 4. The case diary has been received and placed before this Court. I have seen the progress of investigation. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has also confirmed about the appearance of the present petitioner and recording of the statement. Page No.# 3/4 6. I have perused the statement of the accused petitioner available in the case diary. The contention of the petitioner side is that he was merely an employee of the said enterprise under his employer Jumi Das and her husband Ranjeeb Hazarika and it is submitted that he has no complicity in the alleged fraudulent transactions. Interestingly, the FIR was lodged in 2016 itself, but investigation is still in progress. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that investigation materials also indicate that the present petitioner was acting on behalf of the said firm owned by co-accused Ranjeeb. 8. In the given facts and circumstances – considering the elapse of time since the registration of the FIR, the co-operation rendered by the petitioner in the investigation pursuant to the grant of interim bail and the limited nature of the adverse materials revealed against him, as submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State – I deem it fit to make absolute the interim bail. 9. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2025 is hereby made absolute subject to the conditions : i) That the petitioner shall continue render full co- operation in the remaining investigation ; ii) That the petitioner shall not hamper or tamper with Page No.# 4/4 evidence. 10. Violation of the bail conditions might entail cancellation of the interim bail. 11. Return the case diary. 12. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant