Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010166932025 2025:GAU-AS:9952 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2443/2025 SHAHIDUL ISLAM SON OF SRI MARTUJ ALI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF AGDIA PATHER, UNDER SARTHEBARI POLICE STATION, IN THE DISTRICT OF BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781309. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, P D CHOUDHURY,MR A SHORIF,MR S J CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 01.08.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Shorif, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Page No.# 2/4 Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with Tezpur P.S. Case No. 360/2025, under Sections 316(3)/318(4) of BNS, 2023. 3. Case Diary has been received and I have perused the same. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way connected in the alleged offence. However, he got arrested in connection with this case only on the ground that he availed loan amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs from the RTMT Credit Service Ltd. by submitting his documents like Voter ID, Aadhar Card & PAN Card etc. However, he has not committed any such offence as alleged in the F.I.R. nor he is an employee of the said RTMT Company. He was earlier remanded for 5 (five) days police custody and thereafter there was no prayer for any custodial interrogation by the I.O. in connection with this case. Mr. Kamar further submitted that the present petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2025 and till date, he has been in custody for last 47 days. The police had already collected all the relevant documents and materials and hence, further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may not be required for the interest of investigation. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of the case if he is granted with the privilege of bail. 5. Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that the present accused/petitioner is also involved in the alleged offence and Page No.# 3/4 the Case Diary reveals sufficient incriminating materials against him. He further submitted that the present petitioner, in conspiracy with the other accused persons, created E-Mandate Account and thereby they used to transfer the money even without generating OTP. Further he submitted that all the accused persons fraudulently transferred more than Rs. 3.28 Crores from the account of one deceased person, namely, Pradip Tibrewal. He further submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Ruhul Amin & Shahinur Khatun, were the Directors of the said RTMT Company and they, along with the present petitioner, are very much involved in the alleged offence. He also submitted that the present petitioner introduced the accused- Ruhul Amin to accused- Sonowar Hussain and thereafter they all created the E-Mandate Account and transferred the entire aforesaid amount to the account of the said RTMT Company. Mr. Sarma further submitted that from the order passed by the learned Court below, it reveals that around more than Rs. 2.83 Crores had already been seized from the account of the said RTMT Company and the same was given zimma to the complainant. But till date, more than Rs. 40 Lakhs are yet to be recovered and some of the accused persons, who are also involved in the alleged offence, are still absconding and yet to be nabbed in connection with this case. Accordingly, Mr. Sarma submitted that further custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be required for the interest of investigation and hence, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, he raised objection in allowing the accused/petitioner on bail at this stage. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have also perused the Case Record and the Case Diary and it is seen that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the present Page No.# 4/4 petitioners and considering the gravity of the offence, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the accused/petitioner at this stage and accordingly, the prayer for bail for the accused/petitioner is rejected. 7. In terms of above, this bail application stands disposed of. 8. Case Diary be send back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant