Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010252942024 2025:GAU-AS:717 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3152/2024 DULAL DAS S/O BHOLA RAM DAS R/O NIZ JAGIAL BEBEJIA BALIGAON P.O. AND P.S. ROHA DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J SAIKIA, B SHARMA,MS D DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 23.01.2025 Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 1022/2024, under Sections 420/408/467/294/506 of the Indian Penal Code. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the present accused/petitioner is innocent and he is no way involved in the alleged offence. He was appointed in the informant’s financial company on 17.12.2022 and worked diligently until he resigned 13.07.2024 due to health issues.the resignation was communicated via WhatsApp message to one Kuldeep Sharma and subsequently he returned all the company’s properties which were entrusted to him during his tenure. Further he submitted that there was also a correspondence from the company/informant on 10.07.2024 through WhatsApp. However, after 2 (two) months of his resignation, an F.I.R. was lodged against him with the allegation of misappropriation of company’s fund by operating a bank account. He further submitted that the accused/petitioner is no way Page No.# 3/4 connected in the alleged offence and that apart, he also submitted the bank statement of the company wherefrom also it is seen that there is no material to show that there was any misappropriation of fund from the company’s account. Mr. Saikia further submitted that the accused/petitioner is however ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of the case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials against the present accused/petitioner. During investigation, it revealed that the present accused/petitioner was mainly operating a bank account, wherein huge amount of money was transferred and deposited in his account and accordingly, he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2 Crores from the company’s account. The investigation is still under progress and accordingly, he raised objection and submitted that it is not at all a fit case to grant the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present petitioner as his custodial interrogation may be required for the interest of investigation. Considering the submission made by the learned counsels for both sides, I have also perused the Case Diary and the statement annexed along with the Case Diary. From the bank statement of the present petitioner, it seems that huge amount of money has been deposited in his account during the entire period and the investigation is still under process. Thus, considering the nature of allegation and the materials brought against the present petitioner, I find that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be necessary to unearth some more facts of the case and also to collect some other vital documents in Page No.# 4/4 connection with this case and therefore, I do not find it a fit case to extend the privilege of pre-arrest bail to the present accused/petitioner at this stage and accordingly the same stands rejected. In terms of above, this anticipatory bail application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant