Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010186492025 2025:GAU-AS:11942 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2730/2025 SHIVAM PANDEY S/O SR. GIRIJESH PANDEY R/O EWS -427, RUPTI NAGAR, BEHIND SPORTS COLLEGE PHASE-4, GORAKHPUR P.S. HCILUATAL DIST. GORAKHPUR UTTAR PRADESH VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 2. By this application, the petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Haflong P.S. Case No. 46/2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 114/2025 registered under Section 318(4)/338/336(3) of the BNS, 2023. 3. The FIR dated 26.07.2025 reveals that the petitioner had stayed in the homestay of the informant for 3 (three) months and that during the same, the petitioner convinced the informant to invest Rs. 25,000/- in an IPO related to Miglox Petroleum assuring of good returns and on the said assurance, the victim gave him Rs. 25,000/- and in absence of any good returns, when the informant questioned him, the petitioner did not give proper answers and on making some research online, the informant came to know that there is no such company or IPO as was told to him. The informant also stated that the petitioner had used forged documents with regard to the said false company and had committed fraud and had taken money from many others apart from him. 4. Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had stayed in the said homestay of the informant and that he left the homestay and that he was picked up by the Police and after 2 (two) days, he was produced before the Magistrate and that as regards the allegations that he had taken money from other persons, there are no FIRs on their behalf. 5. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent by relying on the Case Diary submits that the petitioner was involved in many other cases and that he had many accounts, which were all freezed by the Police personnel. He had also shown the statement of witnesses who had stated that money were being collected from other persons as well as from them and the same were not returned to them. Page No.# 3/3 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court does not deem fit to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the Bail Application stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant