Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010249762025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3850/2025 SRI PRAKASH MISHRA S/O-SRI KAMAL NAYAN MISHRA, R/O- H/NO. 8, JANASHAKTI PATH, JYOTIKUCHI, P.S.-FATASIL AMBARI, DISTRICT-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781040. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHAUHAN, R DEB,MR. P MAZUMDER,M. BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER 04.12.2025 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for Page No.# 2/3 bail of the accused – applicant, namely, Sri Prakash Mishra in connection with CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 10/2025 under Sections 406/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation as narrated in the FIR dated 01.08.2025 is that the accused – applicant by telling the informant’s father as well as other investors that selling certain copper plates, he had received an amount of Rs.2,17,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Seventeen Crores) and the same is to be brought to India, he lured people to invest money with him on promise of high returns. It was alleged that he thereby lured certain investors including the father of the informant to invest money so that he can bring the amount to India and thereafter, pay back more than the double amount invested. It was also alleged by the informant that her father, in between 2018-24, had invested almost Rs.70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs) on the promise by the accused – applicant that huge amount would be returned to him. However, no money was paid to the father of the informant. It was alleged that the informant came to know about the huge investment and cheating by the accused – applicant only after the death of her father. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Police registered a case being CID Cyber P.S. Case No. 10/2025 under Sections 406/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused – applicant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused – applicant submits that the accused – applicant was arrested on 06.10.2025 and he was inside the jail since then, for the last 60 days. He submits that since the mandatory period of detention without filing of the Charge Sheet of 60 days is already over, the accused – applicant should be granted default bail in the instant case. 5. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that the Charge Sheet in the instant case is yet to be filed and accused Page No.# 3/3 – applicant is already behind the bars for the last 60 days. However, looking into the gravity of the matter, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the bail of the petitioner. 6. Considering the submissions made by the respective counsel appearing for the parties as well as going through the materials brought on record and taking into account the length of detention of the accused – applicant, who has already spent more than 59 days behind the bars, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused – applicant should be allowed to go on bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that the accused - applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety of like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) subject to the following conditions. (i) That the accused-applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The accused-applicant shall not try to hamper or tamper with any evidence or influence any witnesses connected with the case. 8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant