Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010273362024 2025:GAU-AS:1351 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/3366/2024 SANJAY DEKA S/O SRI NARESWAR DEKA, PRESENT RESIDENT OF HATIGAON CHARIALI, PO ASRAY BHAWAN, PS GEETANAGAR, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781021 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANDHELI PO BARPIT, PS BELSOR, DIST NALBARI, ASSAM 781378 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY PP ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A BARUAH, MR. J P MORE Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 10-02-2025 Heard Mr. A. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sanjay Deka, who has filed this application under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with prayer for bail as he is apprehending arrest in connection Page No.# 2/3 with Crime Branch Police Station Case No. 13/ 2024 under Section 178/179/180/308/316/318/ 336/340/351/61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Heard Mr. K.K. Parashar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the respondent State. 3. The gist of the case is that fake work orders were procured by Ashim Kumar Das and his companion for Sunny Breja, a shareholder and authorized representative of IT Based Company to supply bed-sheets to Adivasi Welfare & Development Council (AWDC) at Assam. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that Rs.85 Lacs was paid to several persons, who are involved in procuring the fake work orders. Ashim Kumar Das in connivance with Birinchi Barkataki arranged a meeting. Birinchi Barkataki posed as B.N. Sarma and forged signatures and seal on the fake work orders to the complainant’s company. 5. It is further submitted that complainant has also not come with clean hands and he bribed the officials of the company with 6% commission. 6. The present petitioner is only a driver and he is not complicit. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the present petitioner. 8. I have scrutinized the Case Diary. Indeed there are incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the petitioner. 9. At this juncture, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition stands rejected at this stage. Page No.# 3/3 10. In terms of the above observation, this Anticipatory Bail application stands disposed of. 11. Send back the Case Diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant