Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010185222025 2025:GAU-AS:13713 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/2034/2025 SANJIT NAMADAS S/O KANAI NAMADAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NO 3 BISHNUPUR, PO AND PS PANBARI, DISTRICT CHIRANG, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN 781033 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SUTRADHAR, MR. N ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 14.10.2025 Heard Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. By this application, the petitioner has sought for pre arrest bail in Page No.# 2/3 connection with Panbari P.S Case No. 10/2025 registered under Section 316(5)/318(4) of BNS. The FIR dated 27.03.2025 reflects that the petitioner who is CSP holder of Bishnupur SBI Branch had made other villagers open their accounts through him and by using fraudulent means, withdrew Rs. 1,50,00,000/- ( Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakhs) from the villagers and the petitioner absconded thereafter and that the villagers had searched him but unable to find him out. Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation that the petitioner has withdrawn money from the accounts of the villagers is a false allegation inasmuch as nobody can withdraw money from others account without the One-Time Password generated through the Aadhar Card of the account holder. Mr. K. K. Parashar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor however, submits on perusal of the case dairy that there are enough materials which shows that the villagers go to the petitioner who is a Customer Service Provider and on the pretext of one of the other ground the petitioner takes the money of the villagers and tells them that money could not be deposited or withdrawn from their accounts on various grounds. He had also submitted that sixteen (16) victims were examined and all had made similar statements. As such, he submits that money was being taken by the petitioner which may not be to the Page No.# 3/3 tune of the amount mentioned in the FIR but to a very large extent as could be seen from the case dairy. On consideration of the submissions made at the bar and more specifically the fact that the poor villagers comes and deposits their money with the hope that they would get returns later but their money is being misappropriated by the petitioner and as such, this Court does not deems it fit to release the petitioner on pre arrest bail. The petition is rejected at this stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant