Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010227792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3303/2025 SAHIL ANJUM SON OF REJAUL KARIM ALIAS SYED REZAUL KARIM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIX MILE, F.A. AHMED NAGAR, BYELANE NO. 11, HOUSE NO. 54, PS DISPUR, PO KHANAPARA, DISTRICT KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MRS. S BEGUM,MR D MAHANTA,MR. S M MOLLAH Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 11.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. M. Mollah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. Page No.# 2/4 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sahil Anjum, who is detained behind the bars since 04.10.2025 (for the last 37 days) in connection with Mankachar P. S. Case No. 131/2025 under Sections 61(2)/305(a) (e)/306/316(5)/217/314/316 of BNS, 2023. 3. The gist of accusation in this case is that on 04.10.2025 one Alkas Ali, S.I. of Mankachar Police Station had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Mankachar Police Station, inter-alia alleging that on that day at about 4.47 pm, he received an information from the Branch Manager of UCO Bank (present petitioner) to the effect that on that date at about 12.10 pm after closing the bank for lunch, he left the premises and while he returned back at 2.45 pm, he found some known miscreants have broken the grill lock of the bank and illegally entered inside and reportedly Rs. 12,00,000/- of cash amount was missing. 4. It is further alleged in the FIR that during the preliminary enquiry and interrogation of staff, it was suspected that the official of the said bank were involved in planning the offence alleged. 5. Later on, during search of the bank premises a cash amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- was found under cartoon and an amount of 3,10,150/- cash was found in the cash box of cashier. 6. The police during preliminary enquiry also interrogated the daily wage cleaning staff Mr. Arihant Harijan @ Gullu, who confess that the entire incident was conspired and planned by the Bank Manager as well as the cashier. Page No.# 3/4 7. The FIR further states that on search of the residence of the daily wage cleaning staff and an cash amount of Rs. 54,000/- was recovered therefrom. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner was arrested mainly on the basis of the statement of the co-accused i.e. the daily wage earner Mr. Arihant Harijan @ Gullu and nothing apart from his statement is there on record against him. He further submits that the suspected missing amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- has already been recovered and the petitioner is languishing behind the bar for the last 37 days. He further submits that considering the period of detention under gone by the petitioner, he may be allowed to go on bail. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary of Mankachar P. S. Case No. 131/2025 and has submitted that though a query has been posed by the court as regards CCTV footage available during the relevant period of time, however, he submits that on perusal of the case diary, it appears that during the relevant point of time, the CCTV surveillance camera were not functioning. He further submits that during investigation sufficient incriminating materials have been found against the present petitioner and he further objected to ground of the bail to the present petitioner. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the case diary. Page No.# 4/4 11. Though, on the basis of materials available in the case diary, the involvement of the present petitioner may not be ruled out at this stage, however, considering the progress made in the investigation as well as period of detention undergone by the present petitioner this court is of the considered opinion that if the petitioner cooperates in the investigation, his further custodial detention would not be necessary for fair completion of investigation. 12. Hence, the above named petitioner is allowed to go on bail of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only with one surety of like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Salmara Mankachar with the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, ii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to the informant or to other person who may be acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing such facts before the Investigating Officer or to any Court. 13. With the above observations, this bail application is disposed of. 14. Send back the case diary. JUDGE Comparing Assistant