Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010184682025 2025:GAU-AS:11571 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2697/2025 DHIRAJ KALITA SON OF JAY KANTA KALITA R/O VILL- PATANIN, HAJO P.S. HAJO DIST.. KAMRUP, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR. B.J. BRAHMA,A H CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 28.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed Page No.# 2/4 by the petitioner, namely, Dhiraj Kalita who has been detained behind the bars since 06.06.2025(for the last 84 days) in connection with Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025 under Sections 316(5)/3(5) of BNS read with Section 66C/66D of Information Technology 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 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 Page No.# 3/4 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 is only an employee of the bank and he has been made scapegoat in this case. He further submits that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 84 days and considering the period of detention, there is a likelihood that investigation might have been progressed and there may not be any necessity for further custodial detention and therefore, he prays for allowing the petitioner to go on bail. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co- operate in the investigation. 8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary of Mushalpur P.S. Case No. 38/2025 and has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary. However, he submits that the investigation with regard to the complicity of the present petitioner has fairly progressed as his specimen signature has been sent to forensic laboratory for examination and the report of the forensic laboratory has not yet been received. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which was produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It appears that there are incriminating materials against the petitioner in the Case Diary. However, the investigation as regards the complicity of the present petitioner in the alleged offence has fairly progressed. Further, considering the fact that the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 84 days, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner co-operates in the investigation, his further custodial detention Page No.# 4/4 may not be necessary for fair completion of the investigation of the aforesaid case. 10. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the above-named petitioner is hereby allowed to go on bail of Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a suitable surety of like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa, Mushalpur with following conditions that:- (i) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Police Officer as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation; and (ii) the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to any other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 11. Send back the Case Diary. 12. With the above observations, this bail application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant