Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010177472025 2025:GAU-AS:11466 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/1935/2025 SRI CHAMPU BORAH S/O- SRI TILESWAR BORAH. R/O- VILL.- NO.1 RAMPUR, P.O.- KAMALPUR CHARIALI, P.S.- BIHPURIA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN - 784165. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR K KASHYAB,MR. B BORAH,MR. K KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 27.08.2025 1) Heard Mr. I.H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. 2) By this application, the petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Tinsukia P.S Case No. 46/2024 registered under Section 120(B)/406/420/466/468/471/474 of I.P.C.. 3) The F.I.R dated 28.02.2024, lodged by the Branch Manager of S.B.I, Hijuguri, Tinsukia reveals that 32 accused persons claimed to be bonafide employees of various govt. departments had produced fake salary slips and had obtained loans to the tune of Rs. 4 crores. It is also stated in the F.I.R that after availing the said loan, the accused persons mentioned therein had defaulted in their repayments and that it was finally found out that it is not a case, where the loan is availed and is not repaid, but the entire exercise was to defraud the bank and siphon off public money. 4) Mr. I.H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner does not reflect in the said F.I.R and the he has no connection whatsoever with the said offence. However, he submits that on 03.08.2025, i.e. after more than a year, a police officer went to his house and informed him about some financial irregularities and that he was apprised that one Upen Phukan had taken his name which makes him liable for the offence under the said F.I.R. But Mr. I.H Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a typist, was not in any way connected with the said offence. 5) Mr. K Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam had however, strongly objected to the prayer of bail made by the petitioner in as much as, he, on perusal of the Case Diary, submits that the petitioner was in hand in gloves with other accused persons which is reflected in the statement of the co-accused. He submits that the co-accused had stated that the petitioner used to help customers in getting loan from different banks by fraudulent means. 6) I have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully gone through the Case Diary. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not named in Page No.# 3/3 the F.I.R neither any allegation that some other persons are also involved in the offence is reflected. Although in the Case Diary, the co-accused of the case had stated that the petitioner had aided in procuring loans from different banks by fraudulent means but, the details about the said fraudulent means were not reflected in the Case Diary. 7) In view of the said inconsistencies, this Court deems it fit to release the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with 1(one) local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority under the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and appear before the I/O as and when called for. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses connected with the case. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave his place of residence without the permission of the arresting authority. 10. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant