Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010206612025 2025:GAU-AS:13338 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./2986/2025 SUBROJYOTI SARKAR SON OF LATE JHANTU SARKAR PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 28, FIRE BRIGADE GALI, CHATRIBARI BILPAR, REHABARI, PS PALTANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781008. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM, Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR, MR S J CHOUDHURY,P D CHOUDHURY,MR. BISWAJIT TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS O R D E R 25.09.2025 Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 2/3 Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State respondents. 2. This petition under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the accused/petitioner, namely, Subrojyoti Sarkar, praying for grant of bail in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No. 211/2025 under Sections 316(2)/318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The accused is stated to have been arrested on 27.08.2025 in connection with the instant case registered based on a FIR dated 18.06.2025. 4. The gist of the allegation is that the informant agreed to purchase room for business for of Rs. 35 lakhs and prepare an agreement dated 27.12.2024, whereupon, he handed over of Rs. 28 lakhs. Thereafter, the accused No.1, who is the wife of the present accused and owner of the shop stated that she does not want to sell the shop and would be returning the money. However, there was delay in the same. 4. It is further alleged that on 18.06.2025, her husband who is the present accused handed over the photocopy of money receipts showing that the informant had received of Rs. 22 lakhs and though, he had not actually received and that his signature also shown that. It is alleged that by then receipt, the present accused was try to show that he had returned the money. It is alleged that the signature in the money receipt is not yet of the informant and is a forged one. 5. The case diary has placed before this Court, as contended by the learned prosecution on the date on which the money is supposed to have been returned. The case diary shows that both the persons in different location. There is no material found by the investigation about the parties engaged in an effort to settle the monetary part of the dispute. This is in the context of the Page No.# 3/3 submission of the petitioner side that the matter is a civil dispute. The original receipt is stated to have been lost. Investigation is in progress. 6. Considering the nature of the allegation and the materials so far, the instant petition rejected at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail petition stands dismissed and disposed of. 8. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant