Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010280222024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3976/2024 BHABAKRISHNA BARMAN S/O LATE PRAFULLA BARMAN R/O AEI ROAD, NEAR INDRADHANUSH SANGA, AMIYA NAGAR, P.O. SILPUKHURI, P.S. CHANDMARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K BARMAN, MR. R KONWAR,MR. M MALAKAR,MR H ALI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the accused. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition, under Section 483, BNSS, is preferred by accused, namely, Page No.# 2/3 Sri Bhabakrishna Barman, who has been languishing in jail hazot in connection with Crime Branch P.S. Case No. 17/2024, under Sections 61/319(2)/318(4)/316(2)/351(3) of the BNS, for grant of bail. 3. The aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by one Mohammad Suwaleen of Rajasthan on 13.12.2024. The essence of allegation against the present accused is that by misrepresenting himself to be an employee of National Investigation Agency (NIA) and using NIA Logo, he promised to arrange eight vehicles (Bolero, Thar etc.) from an NIA auction and on such claim, the informant had transferred him a sum of Rs. 32,00,000/- by online, in between February and April, 2023. However, only one vehicle was delivered to him without proper legal documents and during his visit to Guwahati, the accused gave him four cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- each as security. But, he could encash only one cheque as the other cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient fund, and despite repeated request, he had also failed to deliver remaining vehicles and threatened to cause harm to him. 4. Mr. Ali, learned Counsel for the accused submits that the accused is innocent and no way involved with the offence alleged in the FIR and that he is behind the bar for last 36 days, and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency, and therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary before this Court and submits that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused, and that he is also a habitual offender and another case, being Dispur P.S. Case No. 3196/2020, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC, is pending against him and the said case has already been charge-sheeted, and investigation of the present case is still going on and if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, it will Page No.# 3/3 hamper the investigation, and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the case diary with the assistance of Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 7. The case diary indicates that the I.O. has collected sufficient incriminating materials against the accused and investigation is still going on. Further, it appears that he is a habitual offender and he was earlier arrested in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No. 3196/2020, under Sections 420/406 of the IPC and the said case has already been charge-sheeted and pending for trial before the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be granted to the accused at this stage and accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 9. Case diary be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant