Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010193302025 2025:GAU-AS:13135 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2842/2025 PUSPENDRA SINGH PANOWAR @ ROHAN SINGH S/O- RAGHU BIR SINGH. R/O- BORGOLA MARKET, NITYANANDA APARTMENT, P.S.- BISWANATH CHARI ALI, DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM, PIN - 784176. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B BURAGOHAIN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 19.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. B. Bongchiary, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam. 2. This application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Page No.# 2/4 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Puspendra Singh Panowar @Rohan Singh, who has been detained behind the bars since 08.08.20225 (for the last 43 days), in connection with Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 105/2025, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/316(2)/318 (2) of BNS read with Sections 43/66/66C/66D of IT Act, 2000. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 23.05.2024, one Rajdeep Newar had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Biswanath Police Station, inter alia, alleging that on receipt of an information through reliable sources that a network party in illegal money transactions have been reported to have been operating in various parts of Assam with its centre at Biswanath. Accordingly, the police arrested 3(three) persons, named in the FIR. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he has been detained behind the bars for the last 43(forty-three) days. 5. He further submits that the petitioner was also remanded to police custody and he is now detained in judicial custody and, therefore, his further custodial interrogation may not be necessary. He also submits that the offence involved in this case entails maximum punishment nor more than 7(seven) years, therefore, the maximum period of detention, for which he may be kept behind the bars during investigation stage, i.e. 60 days. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to co-operate in the investigation. Page No.# 3/4 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioner and has produced the Case Diary of Biswanath Chariali P.S. Case No. 105/2025. 7. She has submitted that during investigation, it has been revealed that the petitioner has 3(three) savings bank account and 12 (twelve) current account in which, suspected monetary transactions to the tune of more than Rs. 2(two crore) was noticed. 8. She further submits that there are other materials in the Case Diary, which implicates the petitioner in the offence alleged in the FIR. She also submits that there are many other co-accused persons, who are yet to be apprehended and considering the fact that the offence involved in this case is in the nature of economic offence, she prays for rejecting the application for bail at this stage. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the Case Diary. Though the petitioner has been detained behind the bars for the last 43 days, however, considering the nature of accusation and the materials available in the Case Diary against the petitioner, apart from the stage of the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage of investigation. 10. The prayer for bail is, therefore, rejected. 11. Send back the Case Diary. 12. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed. Page No.# 4/4 JUDGE Comparing Assistant