Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010239702024 2025:GAU-AS:1125 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3030/2024 DIPAK KUMAR PAUL S/O MADHUSUDAN PAUL,R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BORIGAON, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, B BARMAN,MR. H ALI,MR. I A HAZARIKA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 04-02-2025 Heard learned counsel, Mr. H. Ali, for the petitioner, Dipak Kumar Paul, who has filed this application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, with prayer for pre-arrest bail, as he is apprehending arrest in connection with Abhayapuri PS Case No. 216/2024, under Sections 316(2)/318(2) of the BNS, 2023, read Page No.# 2/3 with Sections 21(1)/21(2)/21(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019. 2. Heard Mr. K. Baishya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024, in connection with AB No. 2557/2024, did not consider the prayer for interim bail. Against this order, the petitioners, Amal Ch Arjya and Smt Moonmoon Dutta Arjya, moved a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and they were granted pre-arrest bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 23.10.2024, in connection with SLP(Crl.) No. 14464/2024. 4. It is submitted that the present petitioner is on the same footing as Amal Ch Arjya and Smt Moonmoon Dutta Arjya and the cause of action of this case arose out of the same FIR, i.e., Abhayapuri PS Case No. 216/2024. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has been falsely accused that he has misappropriated crores of rupees at Abhayapuri through an illegal app, namely, Hedgex. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. I have also scrutinized the Case Diary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. However, I have considered the submission that the co-accused have been granted pre-arrest bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. I have considered the prayer on the ground of parity. 8. Case Diary reveals that investigation has also progressed substantially. Page No.# 3/3 9. Considering all aspects, the interim order dated 29.11.2024 is hereby made absolute under the same terms and conditions. 10. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant