Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010280022024 2025:GAU-AS:844 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : AB/135/2025 SRI BIDYUT BIKASH DEKA S/O MAHENDRA DEKA R/O MILAN NAGAR P.O. AND P.S. SARTHEBARI DIST. BARPETA,ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM, REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/3 This is an application under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused/petitioner, who is apprehending arrest in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 182/2024, under Sections 61(2)/318(4)/306/316(2)/ 316(4)/316(5) of the BNS, 2023, corresponding to G.R. No. 7382/2024. Case Diary has been received. Perused the same. Heard both sides. It is submitted by Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that present accused/petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It is a fact that he was an employee under the SIS Group and his duty was to deposit money in the various ATM Machines and for last 6 (six) years, he was doing his job without any sort of complaint from any corner. But, it is alleged that in the Audit, there was some anomalies found, but he is no way connected in those anomalies and he is doing his job sincerely for last 6 (six) years. However, he is ready and willing to co-operate the I.O. in further investigation of this case if he is granted with the privilege of pre-arrest bail. Mr. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted in this regard that there are sufficient incriminating materials in the Case Diary against the present petitioner, who is an employee of the said SIS Group and his duty was to deposit money in the various ATMs. But, during the investigation and from the Audit Report, it is learnt that around Rs. 98 Lakhs has already been misappropriated by the accused/petitioner and the investigation is still under process and hence, he submitted that his custodial interrogation will be very much essential for the interest of investigation. Page No.# 3/3 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, materials available in the Case Diary and the gravity of offence, wherein it is alleged that Rs. 98 Lakhs has already been misappropriated in connection with this case, I find that custodial interrogation of the present petitioner may be necessary for the interest of investigation 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